LIBRARY  OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 

PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


PRESENTED  BY 


Princeton  Univeredt:-  Libra.ry 


BR  155  .W37  1888 
Washburn,  E.  A.  1819-1881 
Epochs  in  church  history 


^ 


X 


y 


EPOCHS  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY 


AND   OTHER  ESSAYS 


y 


BY   THE   LATE 


Er  A.  WASHBURN,    D.D. 

RECTOR    OF   CALVARY    CHURCH,    NEW    YORK 


EDITED   BY   THE 

REV.  C.  C.  TIFFANY 

RECTOR   OF  ZION   CHURCH,    NEW   YORK 


NEW  YORK 
E.   P.  BUTTON  &  COMPANY 

31  West  Twenty-third  St. 
1888 


:% 


N  4^ 


QPY^GHT, 


1883, 

By  B»:«v1)UTT0N  &  CO. 


PRESS  OF    J.    J.   LITTLE   1  CO., 
ilOS.    10    TO  20    ASTOR    PLACE,    NEW    YORK. 


PREFACE. 


The  discourses  of  the  late  Edward  A.  Washburn, 
D.D.,  which  form  the  contents  of  the  present  volume, 
were  not  all  prepared  by  him  for  publication.  The 
three  essays  on  topics  relating  to  Biblical  interpreta- 
tion were  printed  during  his  life,  and  the  article  on  a 
Personal  Resurrection  was -published  in  the  Princeto7i 
Review^  in  the  May  number  of  1878.  These  seemed 
to  the  Editor  so  valuable  and  of  such  interest  at 
the  present  time,  that  their  preservation  in  the  vol- 
ume now  issued  appeared  to  be  a  duty,  especially  as 
so  few  of  the  manuscripts  left  by  Dr.  Washburn  were 
in  a  condition  in  which  he  would  have  consented  to 
have  them  published.  The  discourses  on  Epochs  of 
C/ucrch  History,  which  form  the  bulk  of  this  book, 
were  originally  delivered  to  the  Students  of  the  Ber- 
keley Divinity  School,  where  Dr.  Washburn  was  Pro- 
fessor of  Church  Polity,  while  holding  the  Rectorship 
of  St.  John's  Church,  Hartford,  Ct.,  from  1854  to 
1863.      They  were   afterwards  changed    in  form,  and 


iv  Preface, 

preached  to  his  congregation  in  Calvary  Church,  New 
York,  and  were  also,  at  least  in  part,  delivered  in 
Philadelphia,  before  the  Faculty  and  Students  of 
the  Divinity  School,  about  the  year  1878.  Dr. 
Washburn  had  intended  to  revise  them  for  publi- 
cation, but  before  he  could  accomplish  the  task,  his 
hand  was  stilled  from  earthly  labor.  They  were  left 
incomplete  in  treatment,  and  lacking  in  that  finished 
style  which  his  artistic  nature  demanded  as  the  fit 
vehicle  for  the  expression  of  his  thought.  But  the 
fact  that  Dr.  Washburn  meant  to  publish  these  dis- 
courses in  a  more  finished  form,  determined  the  Editor 
to  print  them,  though  incomplete.  They  contain  the 
substance  of  his  thought,  by  which  he  wished  to  in- 
form and  influence  others;  and  though  doubtless  he 
might  have  made  them  more  full  and  elaborate,  more 
artistically  worthy  of  himself,  he  would  not  have 
changed  in  an  iota  his  principles  of  historical  criticism, 
nor  have  altered  the  course  of  his  argument.  The 
papers  in  the  volume  have  been  printed  just  as  he  left 
them.  Whatever  they  may  be,  they  are  Dr.  Wash- 
burn's thoughts  in  Dr.  Washburn's  words.  No  one 
who  knew  him  as  well  as  the  Editor  could  hesitate  a 
moment  to  print  whatever  was  printed  exactly  as  it 
was  left.  No  one  true  to  him  would  venture  to  make 
changes  for  the  mere  sake  of  improving  the  elegance 
of  the  expression.  He  avouM  be  himself,  even  if  in 
undress.       Doubtless  had    he    been   able  to   prepare 


Preface.  v 

these  papers  for  the  press,  he  would  have  changed  the 
form  of  some  statements,  and  have  avoided  some  rep- 
etitions, now  obvious  enough.  But  the  Editor  has 
felt  that  the  reader  would  wish  the  Author's  own  ex- 
pression, though  it  might  perhaps  be  better  suited  to 
a  spoken  lecture  than  to  a  printed  discourse. 

In  selecting  the  contents  of  the  present  volume  from 
the  large  mass  of  manuscript  placed  in  his  hands,  the 
Editor  had  to  take  that  which  was  in  itself  most  com- 
plete, and  that  which  treated  of  subjects  which  Dr. 
Washburn  especially  valued.  History  and  Biblical 
criticism  were,  above  all  others,  the  chosen  themes  on 
which  he  loved  to  dwell.  He  believed  they  were  the 
most  fruitful  and  most  healthful  of  all  topics  in  their  in- 
fluence on  the  problems  of  our  own  time,  and  he  be- 
lieved equally  that  they  were  in  great  danger  of  being 
treated  on  false  principles  and  by  wrong  methods.  He 
had  no  sympathy  with  that  view  of  Church  history 
which  kept  it  apart  from  the  history  of  the  civilization  in 
which  the  Church  lived  and  acted,  which  it  influenced, 
and  by  which  it  was  influenced  in  turn.  It  was  as  a 
vital  factor  in  the  life  of  men  and  of  nations,  that  he 
found  its  value,  not  as  a  storehouse  of  ecclesiastical 
traditions  or  the  manufactory  of  theological  proposi- 
tions. It  was  the  growth  of  a  kingdom  which  he  saw  in 
the  rising  walls  of  the  city  of  God  ;  a  kingdom  destined 
to  elevate  and  purify  the  whole  life  of  mankind,  in- 
dividual, social  and  political.     In  his  view  the  king- 


vi  Preface. 

doms  of  this  world  were  to  become  the  kingdoms  of  our 
God  and  of  his  Christ,  not  by  the  consolidation  of  an 
ecclesiastical  hierarchy,  or  the  elaboration  of  theolog- 
ical subtleties,  but  by  the  purification  of  all  life  through 
the  application  of  the  righteousness  and  truth  of  the 
Gospel  to  every  department  of  living.  The  Church 
in  its  truth  and  fellowship  was  the  leaven,  but  the  whole 
mass  of  human  society,  permeated  and  restored,  was 
the  completed  kingdom.  Hence  came  his  apprecia- 
tion of  forms  of  Church  life  and  action  in  other  days, 
which  he  nevertheless  believed  had  passed,  and  ought 
*to  have  passed,  forever.  Hence  his  interest  in  all  the 
practical  social  problems  of  his  own  time,  which  he 
felt  could  only  be  solved  by  the  application  to  them 
of  the  eternal  principles  of  God's  revelation  in  his  Son. 
His  belief  in  Christ,  as  the  Revealer  of  God's  life  to 
human  life,  was  so  reverent  and  so  intense,  that  he  Avas, 
above  all,  earnest  to  study  the  record  of  that  life  and 
word  by  all  the  light  which  Christian  history  and 
Christian  scholarship  could  bring  to  bear  upon  it.  That 
word  and  life  were  to  him  so  truly  Divine  that  he 
beheved  they  must  find  fuller  vindication  and  ampler 
application  as  the  mind  of  the  Church  was  ripened  in 
wisdom  by  the  discipline  of  its  history.  Hence,  he 
held  to  the  modern  Church  as  the  truly  ancient 
Church  ;  and  hence  true  criticism,  both  of  the  Bible 
and  of  history,  was,  in  his  view,  no  resting  in  the  dicta 
of  the  early  Fathers,   nor   acceptance   of  the   disci- 


Preface.  vii 

pline  of  earlier  ages  differently  circumstanced  from 
ours,  but  a  reverent  study  in  the  light  of  all  modern 
discoveries  in  every  branch  of  literature  or  science 
which  could  elucidate  the  truth  and  bring  it  to  bear 
on  the  life  of  the  present  day. 

Dr.  Washburn  thus,  in  all  his  studies  and  writings, 
was  both  conservative  and  progressive.  He  held  to  the 
present  both  as  the  fruit  of  the  past  and  as  the  seed  of 
the  future.  To  him  **every scribe  instructed  unto  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  must  be  like  an  householder 
which  bringeth  forth  out  of  his  treasury  things  new 
and  old;"  things  old,  eternal  in  their  principle;  new  in 
their  application.  Therefore  search  diligently  for  the 
old,  the  veritable,  untarnished  truth,  he  would  say, 
by  the  most  thorough  criticism  of  the  Gospel,  and 
learn  how  to  make  it  new  in  its  force  by  the  en- 
lightened study  of  the  victories  and  the  failures,  the 
achievements  and  the  errors  of  the  long-developing  life 
of  the  Church. 

The  following  discourses  illustrate,  though  In  brief, 
his  thought  upon  the  true  method  of  Biblical  and  Ec- 
clesiastical study.  Brief  as  they  are,  they  are  full  of 
his  keenness  of  conception  and  vigor  of  treatment. 
Whether  one  agrees  with  the  opinions  expressed  in 
them  or  not,  the  Editor  has  felt  that  they  must  prove 
a  healthful  stimulus  to  a  living  study  of  the  two  most 
vital  problems  of  our  time.  Biblical  criticism  and  his- 
torical  investigation.      They   are   therefore   given   to 


viii  Preface, 

the  public  as  sketches  rather  than  finished  pictures  ; 
but  sketches  in  which  we  detect  the  movement  of  a 
master  hand  and  the  conception  of  a  master  mind. 

C.  C.  TIFFANY. 

Easter-Tide,  1883. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGB 

The  Apostolic  Age. i 

The  Nicene  Age 25 

The  Latin  Age 49 

The  Reformation 77 

The  English  Church 105 

The  Church  of  America 138 

The  Church  of  the  Future ,  . . .  16S 

Richard  Hooker igg 

The  Aim  and  Influence  of  Biblical  Criticism 239 

The      Christian     Conscience    and     the     Study     of    the 

Scriptures 274 

Christian  Faith  and  Theology 303 

Judaism  and  Christianity 328 

A  Personal  Resurrection  and  Modern  Physical  Science  .  349 

ix 


EPOCHS  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY. 


THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE. 

Apostolic  Christianity  is  the  divine,  unfading  child- 
hood of  our  religion.  The  old  Church,  gray  with  the 
centuries  of  battle,  weary  with  hopes  long  deferred, 
looks  back  as  the  old  man  looks  at  the  past,  and 
wishes  that  it  might  return  to  that  one  sinless  Par- 
adise of  faith  and  unity. 

Yet  it  has  had  too  often  not  a  sober  view  of  that 
period ;  but  as  our  old  age  sees  the  past  idealized  in 
the  far  perspective,  and  forgets  the  true  law  of  growth, 
so  that  Apostolic  period  has  been  made  a  dreamland. 
Here  all  our  theorists,  unchristian  as  well  as  Christian, 
our  restorers  of  a  primitive  faith,  the  Lollard,  or  a  Fox, 
or  a  Zinzendorf;  our  champions  of  a  democratic  or  an 
Episcopal  polity ;  our  socialists  from  the  earlier  Coen- 
obite to  the  later  St.  Simon,  have  sought  the  exact 
pattern  of  their  systems.  It  has  been  mapped  out,  as 
in  an  old  Bible  in  my  library  the  Eden  is  drawn  in 
picture,  each  of  its  four  rivers  traced  in  its  windings, 
I  I 


2  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

and  the  whole  landscape  as  defined  as  if  a  state  sur- 
veyor had  triangulated  it. 

And  thus  in  our  own  time  there  has  arisen  a  keen 
and  unsparing  criticism  as  to  this  period  of  history. 
The  battle  of  our  modern  Christianity  is  to  be  fought 
on  this  field.  There  are  two  positions  which  divide 
army  against  army.  The  one  is  still  the  traditional 
view,  which  regards  it  as  the  perfect  age,  where  are  all 
complete  forms  of  church  life.  The  other  is  the  de- 
structive school,  which  rejects  the  authenticity  of  its 
Scriptures,  and  considers  its  whole  system  as  the 
fabric  of  that  sub-Apostolic  time  between  the  Apostles 
and  the  second  century. 

I  wish  to  read  that  history  as  the  champion  of  nei- 
ther school.  I  regard  the  guesses  of  the  unbelieving 
critics  as  far  wilder  than  any  dreams  of  churchmen ; 
and  believe  that  we  have  the  surest  proof  of  the  essen- 
tial truth  of  the  record,  and  the  unity  of  the  faith.  Yet 
I  hold  it  one  of  the  noblest  results  of  our  historic  criti- 
cism, that  it  has,  by  its  thorough  study  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament in  its  sources,  gained  a  far  truer  conception  of 
the  living  growth  of  that  time.  If  I  can  give  you  a  true 
outline,  it  will  open  to  you  the  whole  of  the  after  history. 
We  shall  indeed  correct  some  of  the  dreams  of  an  Apos- 
tolic past.  We  shall  learn  that  the  golden  age  does  not 
lie  in  the  past,  but  in  the  future.  Yet  we  shall  rise 
from  the  study  to  a  nobler  knowledge  of  the  purpose  of 
God  in  a  revelation  which  is  to  the  *'  end  of  the  days." 


The  Apostolic  Age.  3 

We  turn,  then,  at  once  to  the  immortal  picture  as  it 
stands  on  the  first  page  of  the  book  of  the  Acts,  the 
record  of  this  wonderful  body,  which  sprung  at  once 
into  life  after  our  Lord's  departure.  It  is  not  chiefly 
the  miracle  of  the  Pentecost,  it  is  the  real  character  of 
that  community,  which  commands  our  attention.  The 
supernatural  gifts  of  the  Pentecost  are  only  tempo- 
rary signs  of  the  organization  of  the  Church  itself.  It  is 
a  spiritual  movement,  in  which  is  the  creation  of  a  struct- 
ure that  lasts  through  the  history  of  mankind.  Here 
we  recognize  its  proof  of  divinity.  And  here  we  meet  at 
the  outset  the  ground  error  of  our  modern  destructive 
criticism.  It  is  the  claim  of  the  school  of  Baur,  that 
this  Church  of  the  Pentecost  was,  in  his  own  words, 
built  on  the  enthusiastic  fancy  of  Christ's  resurrection. 
I  know  in  no  vagaries  of  Christian  scholars  one  that 
compares  with  this  of  men  who  pretend  to  historic 
science.  There  is  nothing  which  more  clearly  reveals 
at  the  outset  its  preconceived  error.  It  cannot  reject 
the  facts  of  such  an  early  Church,  the  authenticity  of 
its  birth  and  marvellous  growth  out  of  a  broken  band 
of  disciples,  unlettered,  obscure,  seemingly  dead  after 
their  Master's  death  ;  yet  it  is  compelled  to  claim  that 
all  of  this  came  out  of  the  fable  of  a  resurrection.  But 
I  turn  now  to  the  features  of  that  body.  We  see  the 
Apostles,  the  leaders  of  the  community.  We  see  the 
sole  outpouring  of  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit.  All  the  be- 
lievers act  from  one  social  law.    Their  unity  is  in  the 


4  EpocJis  in  C/mrch  History. 

common  acceptance  of  a  faith  in  the  risen  Lord,  the 
present,  abiding  Head.  The  earliest  worship  is  a  daily- 
assemblage  for  prayers,  and  ''breaking  of  bread,"  the 
Communion  of  the  Supper.  And  this  leads  us  to  the 
kindred  conception.  It  was  a  social  as  well  as  a  re- 
ligious body.  There  is  no  likeness  to  any  of  the  Com- 
munist systems,  of  earlier  or  later  type  ;  a  brotherhood, 
which  abolished  the  right  of  property.  This  has  been 
unreasonably  granted  by  some  expositors.  But  we 
have  the  clearest  warrant  from  the  case  of  Ananias, 
for  affirming  that  the  '*  one  mind  and  one  heart,"  the 
voluntary  principle,  was  its  basis.  Yet  in  the  highest 
sense  that  social  law,  which  the  Church  of  Christ,  as 
a  merely  ecclesiastical  body,  has  so  often  forgotten, 
lay  in  its  original  design.  It  was  the  type  of  a 
regenerate  society,  a  family  of  Christ. 

This  was  the  original  Church  of  Christ ;  I  ask  you  to 
study  it  well.  Here,  at  the  start,  we  realize  the  idea 
of  the  Church  which  St.  Paul  gives  in  his  Epistle  to 
the  Ephesians;  a  Body,  but  one  Life;  the  idea  which 
marks  the  dividing  line  between  the  New  Testament 
and  the  notion  of  an  ecclesiastical  structure.  It  is  a 
community  having  in  itself  the  inherent,  constructive 
growth  of  a  social  state.  It  is^a  living  germ,  not  yet 
ripened,  but  to  ripen  by  the  process  of  the  years.  We 
are  now  to  study  it  down  to  the  close  of  the  Apostolic 
age  in  its  doctrine  and  polity ;  I  cannot  give  you  more 
than  the  outline,  but  this  I  would  give  clearly.     As 


TJie  Apostolic  Age.  5 

we  look,  then,  first,  at  the  belief  of  this  community, 
we  find  them  almost  entirely  Jews.  They  had  only 
the  Old  Testament,  and  their  views  of  divine  revela- 
tion, of  the  history  of  man,  of  salvation,  of  the  end  of 
the  world,  of  eternal  life,  were  such  as  they  had 
learned  in  the  teaching  of  their  popular  religion. 
There  was  one  truth  alone,  which  madle  them  dis- 
tinctively Christian :  belief  in  the  Messiah,  the  Son 
of  God,  the  Saviour  of  man.  All  the  grand  doc- 
trinal ideas  of  a  Paul  lay  in  this  one  belief,  but  they 
must  come  by  the  education  of  the  Hebrew  mind. 
We  are  very  apt  to  lose  sight  of  this,  because  we  read, 
as  they  could  not,  the  gathered  writings  of  the  New 
Testament  canon.  And  now  we  can  trace  the  steps  of 
this  growth.  It  was,  then,  first  in  the  stirring  contro- 
versy as  to  the  reception  of  the  Gentiles,  that  the  Chris- 
tian truth  of  a  salvation  under  other  conditions  than 
a  national  circumcision,  and  the  letter  of  their  law,  took 
hold  of  the  Church.  It  comes  early.  From  that  point 
of  time  when  the  new  diaconate  marks  the  presence  of 
a  large  Gentile  element,  and  finds  in  Stephen  himself 
a  more  distinct  statement  than  ever  before  of  the  an- 
nulling of  Jewish  law  ;  and  again  from  the  baptism  of 
Cornelius,  which  called  out  such  wonder  both  in  Peter 
and  the  rest,  we  see  the  entrance  of  a  more  spiritual 
view.  But  the  guidance  was  reserved  for  the  great 
doctor  of  Tarsus,  one  of  those  constructive  minds  that 
appear   always   at   the   hour,  like   an   Augustin  or   a 


6  Epochs  ill  Church  History. 

Luther,  representing  in  their  personal  history  the 
intellectual  and  moral  strivings  of  their  formative 
time  ;  yet  in  this  case  greater  than  them  all,  fusing  in 
one  the  theological  genius  of  the  Latin  and  the 
strength  of  the  German  leader.  With  this  opens  the 
long  history  of  early  Christianity.  The  Council  at 
Jerusalem  marks  the  entrance  of  the  question  into  the 
life  of  the  whole  Church.  That  Council  in  some  respects 
is  the  most  memorable  of  all — memorable,  because  it 
was  clearly  the  representative  body  of  Apostles, 
elders,  and  people,  whatever  theory  Dr.  Pusey  may 
force  the  text  into^ — the  noblest  pattern  of  the  early 
polity  in  contrast  with  all  others  which  represent  the 
ecclesiastical  authority  alone — memorable  as  a  proof 
of  the  wisdom,  good  sense  and  charity  of  that  time, 
and  in  that  respect  one  of  the  best  evidences  of  a  real 
unity.  Nor  can  I  regard  it,  as  Reuss  has  done,  as  if  it 
were  no  proof  of  organized  authority.  It  was  such. 
But  it  is  the  healthy,  simple  organization  of  the  Body. 
It  did  not  fetter  its  growth.  It  tided  over  the  imme- 
diate trouble;  but  it  could  not  settle  all  that  lay  in  the 
surrender  of  the  rite  of  circumcision,  as,  for  instance,  the 
interpretation  of  the  Old  Covenant,  the  binding  form  of 
the  ritual,  in  fact  all  that  knit  the  Jews  with  the  past. 
And  thus  we  see  arise  in  the  Church  the  two  opposing 
tendencies:  the  Jewish  Christian,  and  the  Hellenistic 
mind  on  the  side  of  spiritual  faith.  It  is  utterly  unjust, 
as  I  shall  show,  to  represent  such  Apostles  as  Peter  or 


The  Apostolic  Age,  J 

James  as  in  any  sense  leaders  of  a  distinct  opposition 
to  St.  Paul.  But  we  cannot  conceal  from  ourselves 
that  there  was  a  life  long,  bitter  warfare  of  the  tradi- 
tional party  with  the  more  liberal.  Its  history  is  only 
to  be  found  by  glimpses  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles ; 
for  they  are  three-fourths  an  itinerary  of  St.  Paul's 
missionary  journeys.  But  in  his  letters,  the  living 
biography  of  the  time,  we  have  enough  to  show  what 
strife  he  had  for  the  first  principles  of  evangelical 
faith,  what  misunderstandings  and  revolts  in  the 
churches  he  had  planted,  what  backwardness  on  the 
part  of  even  a  Peter,  and  how  slowly  the  truth  won  its 
victory.  It  ended  in  the  ripe  growth  of  a  Christian 
truth ;  but  it  did  not  end  in  the  uprooting  of  the 
Jewish  traditionalism;  and  only  as  we  know  it,  can  we 
trace  the  unity  between  this  history  and  the  age 
where  it  reappears.  This  is  the  worth  of  that  history, 
to  show  us  in  that  age  not  only  the  types  of  truth, 
but  the  types  of  error,  rooted  in  this  human  nature  of 
ours. 

Such  was  the  greatest,  most  active  struggle  of  the 
early  Church.  But  before  leaving  the  topic,  I  must 
briefly  touch  other  discords,  which  although  not  ripe 
in  that  age,  are  of  first  moment  in  the  next.  We  find 
in  the  letters  of  St.  Paul  emphatic  notice  of  errorists, 
who  appeared  toward  the  close.  Among  the  doctrines 
named  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  are  worship  of 
angels,  and  neglecting  of  the  body.    It  can  hardly  be 


8  Epochs  in  Chitrch  History. 

doubted  that  they  are  of  the  same  school  as  those  he 
notes  in  I.  Timothy,  i.  4,  of  myths  and  endless  gen- 
ealogies, and  I.  Tim.  iy.  i,  3,7,  of  doctrines  of  demons, 
celibacy  and  abstinence  from  meats.  But  as  we  turn 
to  the  Epistle  of  St.  John,  we  have  again  the  sketch  of 
other  errorists,  whose  leading  idea  was  the  unreality  of 
Christ's  humanity.  Although  they  may  have  been  by 
no  means  of  the  same  school,  yet  the  ground  of  the 
last  error  is  common  to  both.  It  originated  from  the 
one  central  idea  of  the  intrinsic  evil  of  matter.  And 
thus  we  are  warranted  at  least  in  the  inference,  that  all 
these  errors  belong  to  the  same  source,  and  together 
mark  the  closing  period  of  the  Apostles. 

It  is  here,  then,  we  gather  up  these  facts ;  each  of 
which  bears  on  our  whole  view.  For  here  is  the  ground 
of  all  latest  controversy  with  our  modern  criticism.  I 
shall  briefly  state  it.  It  is  the  position  of  the  school 
of  Baur  and  Renan,  that  the  history  of  this  Apostolic 
time  is  to  a  vast  degree  the  fabric  of  the  next  age  ;  that 
the  Pauline  and  the  Petrine  parties  in  the  after  time 
have  forged  many  of  these  epistles,  and  that  so  far 
from  any  clear  idea  of  its  doctrine  or  life,  we  have  at 
best  a  confused  fragment.  It  is  to  this  end  they  have 
found  allusions  in  many  epistles,  which  in  their  view 
show  that  they  are  not  products  of  that  age.  Now  we 
may  briefly  answer,  that  if  every  one  of  the  epistles 
called  spurious  or  doubtful  were  swept  away,  those 
which  they  are  compelled  to  leave  as  genuine  :  the  Ro- 


The  Apostolic  Age.  g 

mans,  I.  and  II.  Corinthians,  Galatians,  I.  Peter,  James 
and  John,  are  enough  to  construct  the  whole  fabric  of 
Apostolic  doctrine  and  order.  But,  again,  all  the  at- 
tempts to  find  specific  allusions  of  a  hostile  sort  in  the 
epistles  of  James  and  Jude,  or  the  Apocalypse,  are  ut- 
terly worthless.  There  is  not  one  of  them  which  shows 
in  this  particular  the  impress  of  the  Anti-Pauline  party 
of  a  later  time,  if  we  except  that  of  II.  Peter.  We  may 
admit  all  that  just  criticism  demands  as  to  the  author- 
ship of  any  of  these  documents,  but  this  guesswork  is 
absurdity.  We  reach  here  the  most  pretentious  of  these 
arguments.  It  is  affirmed  that  those  later  heresies  of 
which  I  spoke,  are  clearly  the  Gnostic  tenets  of  the 
second  and  third  centuries,  and  therefore  it  is  to  that 
later  time  we  are  to  ascribe  the  epistles  of  St.  John,  and 
those  of  St.  Paul.  But  it  is  proved  by  our  best  modern 
critics  that  every  one  of  these  errors  can  be  traced  to 
the  Jewish  Theosophy  before  and  during  the  Apos- 
tolic period.  Gnosticism  itself  was  only  the  ripened 
fruit  of  that  earlier  Eastern  asceticism,  and  Manichae- 
ism,  blended  with  Greek  systems.  The  Apostle  Paul 
himself  has  described  these  men  as  ''  false  teachers  of 
the  law."  The  ideas  of  a  series  of  creations,  of  inter- 
mediate powers  or  daimons ;  the  notion  of  matter  as 
evil,  of  celibacy,  of  ascetic  discipline  ;  and  with  these, 
that  of  the  revelation  of  God  in  a  merely  apparent 
body,  the  germ  of  Docetism, — all  are  of  Jewish  kinship. 
And  thus,  although  the  older  view  of  these  errors  as 


10  Epochs  in  Church  History, 

directly  Gnostic  is  untenable,  the  criticism  which  re- 
jects these  epistles  is  baseless. 

But  I  cannot  dwell  on  this  ;  I  only  state  the  line  of 
argument,  that  you  may  learn  how  truly  at  last  our 
study  guides  us  to  satisfying  results. 

What  we  learn,  then,  from  these  epistles  is  not  the 
disharmony  of  the  New  Testament,  but  the  growth 
of  Christian  thought,  which  came  at  last  from  the 
collision  of  the  Jewish  Christian  and  the  Gentile 
parties.  We  see  in  the  Apostolic  Church  in  its 
degree,  as  with  all  ages,  that  the  truth  must  come  by 
mental  and  moral  struggle.  In  this  light  we  may 
rightly  view  in  these  various  writings  of  the  Apostles, 
as  Neander  suggested  long  ago  in  his  ''  Planting  and 
Training,"  the  manifold  elements  of  such  a  growth. 
There  is  no  nobler  view  of  Christianity.  Its  truth  is 
one  white  beam  refracted  in  these  prismatic  colors. 
We  see  arise  in  the  Church  a  larger,  grander  view  of 
its  doctrine.  It  is  this  we  trace  m«cinly  in  the  in- 
fluence of  St.  Paul.  It  is  the  striking  feature,  that  as 
his  travels  make  the  larger  part  of  the  record,  his  let- 
ters are  its  whole  literature.  We  cannot  speak  of  his 
theology  as  a  dogmatic  system  in  our  sense.  It  is 
because  so  often  his  writings  have  been  looked  at 
through  the  spectacles  of  Augustin  or  Calvin,  not  as 
interpreted  by  the  life  of  his  time,  that  his  plain  idea 
of  an  election  of  grace,  instead  of  a  race-election  in 
Abraham,  has  been  tortured  into  a  cast-iron  supralap- 


The  Apostolic  Age.  ii 

sarianism ;  his  natural  illustration  from  j  ewish  sacri- 
fice into  a  theory  of  substitution.  It  is  thus  an  older 
Unitarianism  has  called  it  a  theological  Christianity. 
It  is  thus  Renan,  in  his  latest  work  on  St.  Paul,  has  so 
presented  him  as  creating  the  religion  of  the  Church, 
But  it  is  utter  lack  of  appreciation  of  the  mind  of  the 
Apostle.  The  key  to  his  system,  as  has  been  well 
said  by  a  noble  writer  on  the  apostolic  theology,  is  in 
the  personal  experience  of  the  man.  He  had  passed 
through  the  whole  process  of  Jewish  training,  had  felt 
the  inability  of  the  Mosaic  law  to  answer  the  needs  of 
the  conscience,  had  found  in  a  personal  faith  in  Christ 
the  only  ground  of  redemption  from  sin  and  the  law 
of  a  living  holiness.  All  his  views  are  the  expansion  of 
this  one  truth.  And  thus  we  know  the  influence  of  the 
mind  of  Paul,  not  only  on  his  own,  but  all  ages,  like  that 
of  the  Reformation,  when  the  same  struggle  has  arisen 
between  tradition  and  a  living  truth.  It  is  in  him  we 
find  the  spiritual  conception  of  all  our  Christian  the- 
ology ;  viz.  the  divinity  of  Christ,  yet  not  in  subtle  def- 
inition, but  as  it  speaks  in  the  revelation  of  the  Son  of 
God,  the  Saviour  ;  the  Atonement — as  it  speaks  to  the 
consciousness  of  man  in  the  strife  between  the  law  and 
the  need  of  a  free  grace  ;  the  justifying  faith,  as  it  is 
the  root  of  our  holiness,  and  of  the  new  life  in  the  risen 
Christ.  And  in  the  same  harmonious  view  v.^e  may 
recognize  the  influence  of  the  other  leading  Apostles. 
As  in  a  Paul  we  have  the  intellectual  and  spiritual  life 


12  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

of  Christianity,  so  we  have  in  Peter  and  James  the 
practical  side.  There  is  no  reasoning  in  them  on  these 
grander  topics  of  the  divine  work  of  Christ,  or  the  rela- 
tion of  the  Gospel  to  the  nations  ;  but  we  see  the  best 
type  of  a  Jewish  Christian  training,  and  we  need  not 
wonder  at  finding  them  in  the  day  of  controversy  siding 
with  the  ''  men  of  the  circumcision,"  from  a  conserva- 
tive dread  of  new  things.  But  we  must  not  forget  that 
it  is  Peter  in  his  Epistle,  who  speaks  of  all  Christians 
as  "priests  to  God,"  a  living  temple,  to  offer '' spir- 
itual sacrifices."  It  is  the  devout,  simple  apostle, 
who  speaks,  and  the  "  Petrine  element,"  as  it  is  styled, 
was  on  its  true  side  a  healthy  one  in  the  body.  A 
yet  more  marked  character  is  seen  in  James.  The  mind 
which  clung  amidst  the  disputes  of  freedom  and  faith 
to  the  duties  of  Christianity,  is  another  than  that  of  a 
Paul  in  height  and  depth.  But  so  far  from  any  con- 
tradiction, I  cannot  even  admit,  as  our  received 
exposition  has  so  long  claimed  since  the  day  of  Bishop 
Butler,  that  his  epistle  was  written  to  counteract  a 
growing  Solifidianism.  Its  date,  its  whole  drift,  show 
that  it  was  aimed  at  a  class  of  Jewish  Christians  who 
held  a  formal  faith  in  the  Mosaic  decalogue,  and  his 
distinct  teaching  is  the  dpyianeia  of  the  affections,  the 
law  manifested  in  charity,  love  of  brethren,  peaceable- 
ness.  He  views  the  fruits,  St.  Paul  the  root.  And 
so  we  reach  the  last  and  noblest  of  these  teachers, 
St.  John.     He  stands  apart  in  the  whole  character  of 


The  Apostolic  Age.  13 

his  thought,  as  his  Gospel  does  ;  no  logician,  no  prac- 
tical moralist,  but  the  teacher  of  the  ethical  life  of 
the  Gospel.  And  thus  his  influence  has  been  less 
apparent  than  that  of  a  Paul.  But  it  is  no  less  a 
distinct  element  in  the  thought  of  that  age.  I  cannot 
here  speak  of  the  historic  questions  which  have  arisen 
as  to  his  gospel.  Nothing  is  stranger  than  the 
criticism  which  has  charged  him  with  giving  us  an 
ideal  Christ  instead  of  the  simple  Master  of  Matthew 
and  Luke.  His  is,  as  Luther  said,  the  theology  of  the 
heart.  It  is  a  theology  which  is  sublimest  because  it 
is  simplest.  All  problems  are  resolved  by  one  moral 
truth.  God  is  love  ;  the  love  of  God  to  man  is  the 
essence  of  Christ's  incarnation  and  sacrifice;  the  love 
of  Christ  in  us  is  the  love  of  our  brethren.  Sin  is  the" 
death  of  the  unloving  soul  ;  love  is  life  eternal.  It  is 
as  the  teacher  of  such  a  Christian  ethics  that  St.  John 
remains  forever. 

It  is  thus,  in  a  word,  that  we  grasp  the  true  concep- 
tion of  the  Apostolic  doctrine.  It  came  forth,  this  living 
growth,  out  of  the  mind  and  heart  of  the  time.  There 
is  no  new  gospel.  But  it  is  the  theology  of  the  youth 
of  the  Church.  We  see  undoubtedly  some  traditions 
of  a  Jewish  theology  mingled  with  the  faith  of  the  age, 
as  the  prevalent  notion  of  a  speedy  Advent.  But  if  we 
look  at  the  great  positive  truths  as  they  appear  there, 
the  Divine  Humanity,  the  Atoning  Sacrifice  of  Christ, 
the  gift  of  the  Spirit  ;  the  union  with  Christ  in  a  real 


14  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

faith  ;  the  promise  of  life ;  these  are  all  there.  Its 
grandest  power  lies  there,  in  that  it  represents  on  the 
one  side  the  intensest  struggle,  and  has  in  it  the  germs 
of  all  after  thought.  Yet  it  is  the  witness  of  the  age, 
when  Christianity  is  still  one,  when  science  and  faith 
are  not  divorced  ;  and  the  only  way  in  which  we  can 
understand  it  is  when  we  behold  there  this  unity,  not 
the  unity  of  a  Nicene  or  any  other  symbol,  but  the 
unity  of  doctrine  and  life. 

And  thus  I  pass  to  the  outward  organization.  I  shall 
not  dwell  on  its  details ;  it  is  the  same  law  of  historic 
growth  and  life  I  wish  to  set  forth.  You  saw  it  a 
simple  household,  united  by  a  form  of  baptism  and  the 
supper,  and  an  Apostolic  order;  with,  however,  the  clear 
'recognition  of  a  divine  life  in  the  whole  body,  manifest 
in  manifold  gifts.  In  these  elements  lay  the  after 
growth.  We  shall  begin  with  worship.  It  must  be 
remembered  that  these  Christians  were  still  Jews,  and 
continued  such  in  their  attendance  on  the  Synagogue. 
The  formation  of  a  worship  was  thus  a  gradual  thing  ; 
and  the  natural  law  was  to  follow  the  synagogue  sys- 
tem. Thus  in  the  early  Church  we  find  the  like  feat- 
ures of  reading  of  Scripture,  to  which  were  added  by 
and  by  the  Apostolic  letters,  the  Psalms  in  chant,  the 
prayers  and  exposition  of  Scripture  by  those  who 
spoke  as  teachers  or  special  prophetic  gift.  In  pro- 
portion as  their  assemblies  grew  from  the  ''  inxXiiGia 
iv  obiia,''  to  more  regular  order,  the  changes  suited  to 


The  Apostolic  Age.  15 

the  Christian  faith  took  place.  I  turn  thus  to  the  two 
sacraments  of  the  Church.  We  see  in  the  rite  of  bap- 
tism its  original  meaning  as  the  profession  of  faith  in 
Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost.  It  is  connected  with 
the  laying  on  of  hands  and  the  gift  of  the  Spirit.  Re- 
mission of  sins  is  joined  with  it.  But  it  must  be  noted 
that  in  every  case  wliere  such  spiritual  gifts  are  named, 
the  baptized  persons  are  adult  converts.  The  idea  of 
penitence  and  personal  fitness  is  clearly  involved.  Re- 
generation meant  simply  a  birth  out  of  the  world  into 
this  new  family  of  believers,  to  whom  was  pledged  the 
grace  of  the  Spirit.  There  is  not  a  trace  in  the  epistles 
of  any  such  notion  as  appears  in  a  Tertullian,  of  a 
special  sacramental  efficacy  in  the  element ;  or  as  in  an 
Augustin,of  the  cleansing  of  original  sin.  This  is  utterly 
to  misconceive  the  mind  of  that  age ;  and  it  is  as  much  so 
to  suppose  it  meant  the  Calvinistic  notion  of  an  inward 
sudden,  abnormal  transformation.  Nor  need  we  ask 
any  further  solution  of  the  Apostolic  use  of  infant  bap- 
tism. It  seems  quite  probable  that  the  custom  began 
at  the  close  of  this  time,  when  there  was  'a  settled 
household  Christianity.  Did  we,  instead  of  defending 
a  received  custom,  consider  how  far  the  proof  of  its 
use  is  from  demonstration,  how  much  there  is  on  the 
other  hand  in  the  proof  that  in  the  later  Church  it  was 
delayed  often  to  mature  years,  and  that  the  whole 
catechetical  system  involved  instruction  before  it,  we 
should  be  content  with  the   wise  wording  of  our  arti- 


i6  Epochs  ill  Church  History. 

cle,  that  it  is  "  agreeable  to  the  institution  of  Christ." 
It  was  the  significant  and  beautiful  rite,  which  grew 
out  of  the  family  life,  it  matters  not  when  ;  and  if  we 
will  so  read  the  New  Testament  by  its  own  light,  not 
by  any  scholastic  definition  of  sacramental  grace  on 
the  one  hand,  or  later  definition  of  regeneration  on  the 
other,  as  some  sudden,  abnormal  process  of  the  Spirit, 
we  shall  not  make  a  puzzle  out  of  the  simplest  of  rites. 
And  so  if  we  turn  from  all  theories  to  the  New  Tes- 
tament we  learn  the  same  simple  meaning  in  the  sacra- 
ment of  the  Supper.  I  have  said  that  it  was  in  its 
primitive  use  a  social  feast,  the  symbol  of  fellowship 
with  Christ  and  the  brethren  ;  I  need  only  add  that  it 
remained  such  until  toward  the  time  when  St.  Paul 
wrote  to  the  Corinthian  church.  We  know  from  this 
that  it  began  to  be  abused  ;  and  probably  it  was  hence- 
forth more  solemnly  kept  in  the  Church,  while  the 
Agapse  became  a  separate  custom.  It  was  the  "  show- 
ing forth  of  the  Lord's  death."  It  was  the  centre  of 
worship.  And  it  is  one  of  the  most  interesting  of 
facts,  that  out  of  the  oral  service,  probably  then 
begun,  there  grew  the  whole  family  of  stately  litur- 
gies which  have  come  down  to  us.  But  this  of  itself 
is  the  best  witness  of  its  character.  There  is  not  a 
trace  of  any  theory  of  a  Sacramental  Presence;  of  ele- 
mentation,  or  impanation,  or  any  of  the  notions  that 
grew  into  dogma  out  of  the  rhetorical  imagery  of  later 
Fathers.     Its   only  sacrifice  was  the   evxapiaria  of  a 


The  Apostolic  Age.  17 

loving  heart ;  and  the  sacrament  was  the  symbol  of  a 
life  of  communion. 

But  I  pass  to  the  Apostolic  government.  I  shall 
trace  its  steps.  We  have  seen  that  it  was  a  body, 
which  acknowledged  the  Apostles  as  the  commissioned 
head,  yet  had  in  it  the  elements  of  a  large  and  free 
growth  in  its  manifold  gifts.  The  first  change  is  the 
appointment  of  the  seven  diakonoi.  It  sprang  out  of 
the  wants  of  the  Gentile  converts.  It  was  a  growth. 
Our  notion  of  a  three-fold  ministry,  fixed  in  the  body 
like  an  ecclesiastical  trefoil  in  a  cathedral,  is  to  forget 
its  meaning.  The  deacon  was  chosen  by  the  body, 
and  ordained  by  Apostolic  hands.  But  he  was  a  min- 
ister, not  only  an  almoner,  one  who  baptized  and 
preached.  As  we  proceed,  we  find  another  order 
named,  that  of  presbyter.  The  etymology  of  the  name 
reveals  that  it  grew  naturally  out  of  the  ''  Elder  "  of  the 
synagogue.  It  is  most  significant  that  it  is  not  priest. 
There  is  nothing  borrowed  from  the  Temple  order  or 
ritual.  It  Is  a  strange  proof  of  the  power  o{  words  that 
this  oi elder ^  by  a  travesty  of  speech  turned  mto  priest ^ 
should  have  so  long  stood  for  the  opposite  of  what  it 
teaches.  We  gather  thus  the  structure  of  the  system. 
The  Church  established  itself  in  great  municipal  cen- 
tres ;  and  while  the  Apostles  had  their  general  over- 
seership,  there  arose  a  college  of  elders.  But  there 
was  not  as  now  a  system  of  separate  churches.  The 
parish  was  the  whole  cluster  of  Christian  families.  The 


1 8  Epochs  in  C J  Lurch  History. 

presbyterate  was  one,  presiding  together  over  the 
common  interest.  Some  gave  themselves  especially  to 
instruction,  others  to  pastoral  care.  But  besides  these 
structural  outlines  of  the  ministry,  there  were  other 
functions,  in  their  nature  passing,  yet  of  great  activity  ; 
prophets,  not  seers,  but  inspired  preachers,  both  men 
and  women  ;  interpreters  ;  healers  ;  evangelists,  proba- 
bly missionary  preachers;  and  further  deaconesses,  and 
it  has  been  supposed 'presbyteresses,  fellow  workers  in 
the  churches.  It  is  simply  impossible  for  us  to  gain 
any  clear  idea  of  all  these  functions;  and  the  point  I 
wish  to  insist  on  is,  that  they  were  the  natural  growths 
of  an  age  of  formation.  All  the  attempts  to  construct 
theories  of  a  fourfold  ministry  out  of  such  passages  as 
Ephesians,  iv.  ii,  is  proof  of  wasted  ingenuity.  The 
one  grand  lesson  for  us  to  learn  is  the  power  of  that 
primitive  life  to  create  a  manifold  activity. 

It  is  now  out  of  this  formative  period  we  see  arise, 
toward  the  close  of  the  Apostolic  time,  a  more  regular 
unity.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  we  have  al- 
ready a  glimpse  of  the  orderly  change  passing  over 
the  worship.  The  time  for  extraordinary  gifts  was 
passing  ;  confusion  had  divided  the  assembly,  and  a 
more  settled  system  was  needed.  That  which  took 
place  In  Corinth  is  the  sign  of  this  construction  on  a 
larger  scale.  The  churches  had  expanded.  It  was  no 
longer  possible  to  remain  under  a  general  apostolate, 
but  there  must  be  a  permanent  overscership  in  the  great 


The  Apostolic  Age,  19 

municipal  cities.  We  see  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles  the 
first  appointment  of  two  eminent  men  over  the  churches 
of  Ephesus  and  Crete.  In  these  are  the  outlines  of 
a  fixed  order ;  a  chief  minister,  who  ordains  pres- 
byters and  deacons,  and  arranges  his  specific  domain. 
It  is  the  draft  of  what  we  call  a  diocesan  episcopate. 
Nor  can  we  read  it  without  admitting  that  it  betokens 
the  rise  of  a  new,  compact  organization.  To  say  that 
the  rise  of  such  an  order  was  from  the  ";rowinsf  aris- 
tocracy  of  the  Church  in  the  next  later  age,  is  merely 
proof  of  the  love  of  a  Presbyterian  or  Democratic  the- 
ory more  than  of  the  facts  of  the  New  Testament.  It 
is  just  as  unhistoric  when  the  churchman  attempts  to 
rear  from  the  slender  material  of  fact  his  grand  edi- 
fice of  a  Divine,  Apostolic  authority  as  transmitted  to 
this  diocesan  episcopate.  It  is  to  ignore  the  growing 
life  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  turn  it  into  a  the- 
ocracy, a  caste.  Nothing  is  stranger  than  that  such  a 
notion,  the  very  itpc^rov  tpevSo?  of  the  Roman  priestly 
state,  can  be  called  a  church  principle.  It  is  the  cari- 
cature of  all  the  facts.  We  may  fairly  infer  from  the 
Pastoral  Epistles  the  rise  of  a  diocesan  order,  but  never 
that  this  took  place  by  Apostolic  appointment  in  all 
cases.  The  fact  that  the  name  Bishop  is  only  another 
name  for  Presbyter,  and  remains  so  throughout  the 
New  Testament,  can  never  be  explained  on  such  a 
theory.  Historic  justice  points  to  one  only  satisfying 
reason,  as  our  candid  divines  from  Field  to  Lightfoot 


20  Epochs  in  Church  History, 

grant,  that  the  early  diocesan  Bishop  was  in  many 
cases  chosen  by  the  college  of  presbyters,  and  hence 
the  name  actually  became  limited  to  him.  I  rest  the 
case  there.  No  chain,  however  long,  is  stouter  than 
its  weakest  link  ;  and  here  the  link  happens  to  be  the 
first,  and  indeed  the  staple  whereon  the  whole  hangs. 
In  a  word  the  New  Testament  gives  us  no  theory  of 
an  absolute  transmission  of  authority,  but  a  historic 
order,  growing  out  of  the  life  of  the  whole  body. 

Such  is  the  view  in  which  that  creative  age  comes 
before  us,  as  we  read  it  by  its  own  light.  One  growth 
in  doctrine  and  order;  one  living  unity,  not  a  theolog- 
ical system,  not  an  ecclesiastical  mechanism,  but  one 
Body  of  Christ. 

And  thus,  if  you  have  followed  me  in  my  rapid 
sketch,  you  know  the  true  wealth  of  Apostolic  Chris- 
tianity for  all  ages.  It  teaches  us  the  real  unity  of 
faith  and  fellowship.  We  go  back  to  that  childhood 
of  our  religion  ;  we  repeat  that  Apostles'  Creed,  which 
though  written  and  enlarged  in  later  days  was  without 
a  doubt  the  transcript  of  the  simple  oral  confession 
of  this  primitive  day;  we  feel,  as  we  repeat  it,  that 
we  are  as  yet  in  the  time  which  knew  no  subtle  defini- 
tions, when  no  errors  had  called  forth  even  the  formula 
of  Nice  ;  when  men  held  the  plain  historic  facts  of  the 
Gospel.  And  we  thank  God  for  the  fact  that  above  all 
other  noble  features  of  our  beloved  communion  it  plants 
us  there,  that  it  asks  no  other  confession  of  its  baptized 


The  Apostolic  Age.  21 

believers  than  this ;  and  while  it  has  its  articles  for  its 
scholars,  it  gives  this  to  the  people  as  the  one  rule  of 
faith.  It  only  sums  up  the  New  Testament.  And  by 
this  standard  it  teaches  us  to  test  all  later  systems. 
We  may  accept  them,  or  reject  them,  but  w^e  accept 
them  only  as  they  are  proven  by  m.ost  sure  warranty 
of  Holy  Scripture.  No  Procrustean  measure  of  a 
Patristic  theology,  or  a  later  one  of  Calvin  or  Arminius 
turns  our  simple  faith  into  a  tradition  of  men.  No 
theory  of  a  "  concurrent  authority  "  changes  our  per- 
sonal belief  in  Christ  into  an  acceptance  of  a  formal 
decree.  It  is  our  charter  forever.  And  that  Apostolic 
age  is  the  type  forever  of  our  living  organization.  It 
is  the  fountain  head,  where  we  drink  of  the  waters  before 
they  pass  into  the  more  turbid  streams  of  histor}^ 
We  can  study  the  ages  afterward  with  a  just  apprecia- 
tion of  their  truth.  But  we  have  here  the  dividing  line 
between  the  time  when  the  sacraments  and  the  ministry 
were  still  what  Christ  had  left  them,  and  the  time  when 
fantastic  theories  and  ecclesiastical  systems  had  dis- 
tinctly modified  them.  This  is  the  immortal  heritage 
of  that  child-like  time.  It  is  the  mind,  the  heart  of  that 
childhood  we  are  to  keep  amidst  the  changes  of  age. 

And  thus,  in  the  next  place,  we  know  by  the  same 
study  the  error  of  every  age  which  has  sought  to  find 
in  that  first  Christianity  a  full-grown  pattern  of  the 
Church  of  God.  It  is  to  mistake  the  costume  of  the 
child  for  the  life  of  the  man.     It  is  to  lose  the  deepest 


22  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

lesson  of  its  growing  youth.  I  cannot  number  these  mis- 
takes. History  ever  repeats  them.  It  is  thus  that  among 
the  ancient  churches  of  the  East,  and  in  the  Latin  also, 
there  linger  those  usages  of  the  past ;  as  the  Copt  uses 
his  chrism  and  exorcism,  and  the  Greek  insists  on  his 
unleavened  bread.  It  is  thus  the  Moravian  will  keep 
the  Agapae ;  the  Baptist  make  an  essential  mark  of  a 
divine  religion  the  quantity  of  water  used  in  Baptism, 
while  he  forgets  that  the  Apostles  had  no  baptisteries 
or  india-rubber  bathing  suits.  And  in  another  shape 
it  is  thus  that  the  community  system  of  early  times  has 
been  revived  again  and  again,  not  only  by  Christian 
sects,  but  even  by  a  St.  Simon,  who  renounced  all 
Christian  truth,  and  only  kept  a  fancied  pattern  of  a 
social  order  without  property.  But  I  pass  to  graver 
instances :  it  is  the  self-same  error  which  has  led 
to  the  whole  battle  since  the  Reformation.  Each  has 
sought  in  the  New  Testament  for  a  perfect  model,  and 
as  each  can  find  in  the  transition  time  some  features 
like  his  own,  and  so  ample  room  for  guess  work,  the 
Presbyterian  has  found  parity,  the  Independent  auton- 
omy of  churches,  the  Churchman  his  Episcopate.  Yet 
neither  has  seen  that  whatever  the  facts,  they  can  only 
settle  a  venerable  precedent,  never  a  principle;  that 
to  suppose  a  polity,  fitted  to  the  youth  of  our  religion, 
to  be  the  absolute  law  of  all  times,  is  a  sectarianism  as 
palpable  as  to  insist  on  immersion.  I  know  that  in 
saying  this,  I  offend  many  champions  of  our  commun- 


The  Apostolic  Age.  23 

ion.  But  I  urge  no  radicalism,  I  give  the  sound 
church  principle  of  all  our  great  Reformed  divines. 
It  is  one  of  the  most  curious  facts  of  history,  that  our 
modern  Anglicans  stand  on  the  very  ground  of  the 
older  Puritans.  It  was  the  fierce  outcry  of  Cartwright 
against  Prelacy,  that  it  was  not  prescript  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  therefore  Anti-Christ;  and  in  his 
answer,  Whitgift,  the  type-churchman  of  his  day, 
claimed  that  *'  to  hold  it  of  necessity  to  keep  the  exact 
pattern  of  the  Apostles  '*  is  a  "  rotten  pillar."  That 
was  the  ground  of  Hooker,  the  most  misjudged  jurist 
of  the  Church.  He  claims  a  primitive  origin,  a  historic 
validity,  no  more ;  the  right  of  the  Church  to  ordain 
ceremonies,  not  contrary  to  God's  word,  and  no  more. 
In  our  day  the  Anglican  is  only  another  Cartwright, 
and  calls  all  tDther  ministry  than  his  Anti-Christ.  I 
am  content  to  stand  with  Whitgift  and  Hooker. 

And  if  you  have  thus  grasped  the  principle,  I  need 
ask  no  more.  You  will  learn  to  read  this  primitive 
age,  not  as  if  I  had  shown  some  slab  of  preadamite 
rock,  with  its  gigantic  bird  tracks,  its  fossil  twigs  of  a 
flora  not  now  on  the  earth,  but  a  history  which  lives 
for  us.  The  childhood  of  Christianity  is  past.  We 
cannot  keep  all  the  features  of  its  early  worship  and 
life.  Other  work  is  ours  ;  other  strifes  of  faith,  other 
problemxS  of  order,  other  growths  of  thought,  and  of 
institutions  have  followed  in  the  long  interval.  But  that 
true  childhood  of  the  man  who  has  kept  the  faith,  and 


24  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

purity  of  heart  ;  that  immortal  childhood,  which  still 
looks  out  of  the  eyes  of  an  age,  gray  in  wisdom, 
and  ripened  in  toil ;  gazing  backward,  yet  forward  with 
the  hopes  of  which  the  Apostle  speaks,  not  of  untried 
infancy,  but  of  experience  ;  that  is  the  immortal  child- 
hood which  links  us  with  the  first  age.  It  lives  in  the 
heritage  of  the  word.  It  lives  .in  the  grand  historic 
landmarks  we  cherish.  But  it  lives  above  all  else  in 
the  spirit  it  bequeaths  us.  That  is  the  noblest  succes- 
sion. As  the  Lord  said  of  the  great  herald  of  his 
coming,  "  this,  if  ye  knew  it,  is  Elias  who  should 
come."  So  it  is  this  life  of  the  great  teachers  and 
leaders,  which  ever  repeats  itself  in  history.  It  is 
Paul  who,  when  the  Church  cleaves  to  her  circum- 
cision, speaks  through  the  burning  lips  of  a  Luther 
the  justifying  faith  which  quickens  the  .new  age.  It 
is  John  who,  amidst  the  strifes  of  doctrine  and  the 
unloving  days  of  sect,  calls  us  to  the  love  of  Christ  that 
is  the  soul  of  doctrine  and  the  bond  of  unity.  And  so 
that  first  age  shall  live,  shall  speak,  shall  quicken  us 
with  the  undying  hope  that  the  kingdom  of  our  God 
and  Lord  shall  be  in  the  dim  future,  as  in  the  earliest 
past,  no  dream,  but  a  reality. 


THE  NICENE  AGE. 

It  is  of  the  first  age  of  intellectual  and  social  growth 
in  Christendom  of  which  I  treat,  when  the  religion  of 
Christ  passed  from  its  early  cradle  in  Judea  to  the 
throne  of  the  world.  That  period  to  many  is  little 
more  than  a  waste  of  500  years,  covered  with  the  fos- 
sil remains  of  creeds  and  church  councils.  It  may 
well  appear  so,  if  we  have  read  it  only  in  the  histori- 
ans of  the  past  type  like  Gibbon,  or  the  ecclesiastics 
who  are  busied  merely  with  its  dogmatic  strifes.  But 
if  we  read  in  it  the  education  of  the  new  world  in  the 
faith  of  one  living  God,  if  we  see  in  these  centuries  of 
struggle  the  way  by  which  the  mind  of  the  scholar  as 
well  as  the  humblest  believer  came  at  last  out  of  the 
decaying  idolatries  and  worn-out  scepticisms  into  a 
nobler  truth,  and  if  Vv^e  trace  yet  more  the  might  of 
such  a  truth  in  the  new  creation  of  all  these  forms 
of  social  life,  the  purity,  the  freedom,  the  humanity  that 
makes  Christianity  one  with  civilization,  it  is  indeed 
full  of  meaning.  We  sail  to-day  along  the  silent  sands 
of  the  Nile,  and  the  broken  pillars  of  an  Osiris'  cham- 
ber tell  us  the  life  of  Pharaohs.     The  Nicene  Church  is 


26  Epochs  in   Church  History. 

the  monument  on  the  sands  of  the  greater  Nile  of 
Christian  history,  the  mysterious  stream  that  has 
rolled  through  the  eighteen  centuries,  turbid  but  un- 
broken, its  very  slime  a  Delta  of  fresh  growth.  It  is 
the  opening  chapter  of  the  new  world.  This  is  its 
interest  for  us. 

But,  besides  this,  there  are  two  most  weighty  ques- 
tions involved  in  the  study  of  Ante-Nicene  and  Ni- 
cene  Christianity,  which  specially  touch  the  criticism  of 
the  latest  time.  It  is  in  this  age  that  our  keenest 
scholars  of  the  school  of  Baur  have  sought  to  prove 
their  theory,  that  this  system  of  Christian  doctrine 
was  only  the  development  of  the  Greek  Platonism 
under  new  conditions.  And  here,  on  the  opposite 
side,  our  new  Catholics,  of  the  Oxford  type,  have 
found  their  golden  age  of  a  pure,  unbroken,  ideal 
church.  We  need,  therefore,  to  study  with  honest 
eyes  the  truth  and  the  error,  the  real  worth  of  this  early 
time  for  history,  yet  also  its  grave  defects.  I  shall  en- 
deavor to  do  this.  I  am  not,  as  I  have  already  said,  to 
dwell  on  the  details  of  the  long  record,  but  to  give  you 
a  clear  idea  of  its  great  features  of  thought  and  life. 

Let  us,  then,  consider  the  character  of  Christianity 
as  it  entered  on  its  work  of  regenerating  the  world, 
and  the  conditions  of  its  growth.  We  must,  as  I 
showed  you  in  my  first  lecture  on  the  law  of  historic 
development,  clearly  recognize  the  fact  that  in  the 
order  of  the  historic  Providence,  which  has  euided  the 


The  Nicene  Age,  27 

whole,  its  growth  was  knit  with  the  culture  of  the  race, 
to  whose  influence  the  mind  of  Europe  was  most  in 
debted  in  the  past.      The  seed  was  sown  by  the  Di- 
vine Sower  in   the  corner  of  Judea,  but  the  field  was 
the  world.    If  now  we  look  at  the  Church  of  Christ  on 
the  threshold  of  this  new  era,  we  see  the  problem  be- 
fore it.     It  had  been  left  with  the  closing  day  of  the 
Apostles,  already   on  its    first   stage    of  organization. 
The  long  internal  struggle  between  Jewish  and  Gen- 
tile elements,  necessary  to  its  catholic  character,  was 
well-nigh  ended.     It  had  passed  out -from  its  Mosaic- 
Christianity  into  a  clear  recognition  of  the  larger  life 
beyond  such  a  race  religion  ;  and  with  this  change  there 
had  come  the  beginnings  of  defined  doctrinal  thought 
through  the  writings  of  the  one  thinker,  St.  Paul ;  there 
had  come  a  germinal  unity  of  creed  and  order.    Eut 
there  was  as  yet  only  a  beginning.    There  was  no  New 
Testament  canon.    There  was  no  acknowledged  symbol. 
There  was  no  diocesan  organization  in  any  such  sense 
as  that  of  the  Nicene    time.     Apostolic   Christianity 
was  neither,  as  the  destructive  school  of   Baur  will 
caricature  it,  a  mere  battle  of  disjointed  atoms,  after- 
ward put  together  by  post-Apostolic  invention  ;  nor 
was  it  that  perfect,  divinely  given  model  of  a  theologi- 
cal and  ecclesiastical  system,  dreamed  of  by  Church 
divines.     Either  theory  is  unhistoric.     It  was   simply 
a  church    that  had  passed  nobly  through  its  earliest 
Jewish-Christian  struggle,  and  was  in  that  made  ready 


28  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

for  the  greater  work  of  the  future.  I  cannot  insist  too 
strongly  on  this  point.  We  have  done  no  greater  harm, 
alike  in  our  interpretation  of  Scripture  and  of  Church 
history,  than  in  drawing  this  imaginary  line  between 
Apostolic  history,  as  if  it  were  a  completed  fact,  and  the 
age  after  it.  We  have  lent  to  both  a  Baur  and  a  New- 
man the  most  plausible  argument  of  a  false  theory  of 
development,  because  we  have  denied  the  true.  If  we 
see  in  the  Church  of  the  New  Testament  the  opening  of 
its  whole  historic  life,  we  shall  read  its  own  record  with 
a  knowledge  of  its  real  connection  with  the  after  times. 
And  now  we  can  pass  to  this  great  age  of  the  form- 
ing Church.  It  had  won  its  first  triumph.  It  had 
shown  that  in  the  nature  of  its  truth  and  institution  it 
was  not  to  remain  a  little  household  at  Jerusalem, 
but  to  become  the  centre  of  light  and  life  for  the 
world.  It  had  opened  its  doors  to  the  Gentile.  But 
as  yet  its  converts  were  among  the  less  educated  of 
the  people,  who  were  won  by  their  devout  need  of  a 
faith  purer  than  the  idolatry  around  them.  The  task 
was  now  a  far  larger  and  deeper  one.  It  must  come 
in  contact  with  Gentile  culture.  Let  us  look  at  the 
conditions  of  that  problem.  Let  us  ask  what  the 
civilization  was,  with  which  this  contest  of  four  cent- 
uries was  to  begin.  It  is  a  picture  of  the  mental  and 
moral  decay  of  the  world  I  have  to  draw,  yet  one  of 
the  most  living  colors.  The  age  when  the  religion  of 
Christ  entered  into  this  larger  field,  was  marked  by  the 


The  Niccjie  Age.  29 

fact  that  all  the  old  civilizations  were  broken  by  the 
vast  absorbing  world-empire  of  Rome.  All  lay  in 
ruins.  Yet,  with  the  series  of  conquests  from  Alex- 
ander to  the  Caesars,  there  had  gone  everywhere  the 
new  life  of  commerce,  of  social  and  intellectual  culture. 
It  was  above  all  Greek  culture  which  had  educated  the 
East  and  the  West.  It  had  its  schools  of  new  science 
at  Alexandria,  even  while  Athens  was  on  the  wane. 
Here,  then,  we  have  the  key  to  the  feature  which 
especially  concerns  us,  the  decline  of  the  old  religions. 
Each  of  the  ancient  forms  of  Polytheism  was  a  national 
outgrowth  ;  and  the  mythology,  this  dream  of  the 
fanciful  childhood,  faded  before  the  general  culture  of 
this  ripe  age.  Heathenism  had  reached  the  last  stage 
of  philosophic  criticism.  But  the  philosophy,  which 
uprooted  the  superstition,  did  not  supply  faith.  It 
had  lost  that  devout  feeling  which  led  Plato,  in  the 
noblest  age  of  Greek  thought,  to  seek  some  deeper, 
sacred  meaning  in  the  decaying  myths.  In  its  two 
greatest  schools  we  have  the  image  of  the  culture  of 
that  time.  We  see  in  the  stoic,  from  Seneca  to  Epic- 
tetus  and  Antoninus,  the  moral  grandeur,  which  even  in 
the  utter  loss  of  faith  clung  to  the  law  of  absolute  duty. 
But  if  we  seek  the  best  picture  of  the  men  of  letters, 
we  must  read  the  dialogues  of  the  Epicurean  Lucian, 
the  ribald  wit,  the  merciless  laugh  alike  at  the  altar 
worship,  and  the  solemn  "  doctors  of  the  stoic  few." 
Platonism,  again,  presents   in   this    age   another  and 


30  Epochs  in   Church  History. 

strange  feature.     It  had  dwindled,  after  the  time  of 
Aristotle,  into  a  cold   dialectic  scepticism.     But  now 
there  arose  among  more   devout   thinkers  a  reaction 
against  the  scientific  unbelief.     It  found  its  voice  in 
the  new  Platonism ;  and  to  understand   the  power  of 
Christianity,  we  must  see  the  meaning  of  this  singular 
element  in  the  thought  of  that  mingled  age.     I  cannot 
better  describe  it  than  in  the  famous  appeal  of  St.  Paul. 
It  was  an  altar  to  ''  an  unknown  God."     It  was  a  des- 
pairing, final  outcry,  uttered  alike  by  the  devout  sage 
and  the  perplexed  worshipper,  for  some  sure  knowl- 
edge.    Greek  wisdom  had  no  answer,  and  the  mind  of 
these  men  turned  to  a  mystic  eclecticism.     The  old 
theosophies  of  the  East  had  been  opened  to  Western 
thought.      All  the   fancies  of  Persian  and   Egyptian 
worship,   of  magic,   astrology,   necromancy,  the  wild 
ideas   which   afterward    played    such   a   part   in    the 
Gnostic  systems,  were  rife  in  this  latter  day  of  hea- 
thenism.    We  are  not  to  imagine  that  the  intellectual 
or  religious  life  of  that  world  was  decayed.     Far  from 
it.     The  past  faith  and  worship  were  decayed ;    but 
there  was  never  in  the  world's  history  a  time  when 
there  was  such  restless  movement  of  mind  and  heart. 

It  is  here,  then,  we  understand  the  conditions  in 
which  the  religion  and  Church  of  Christ  began  its  work. 
And  here  we  can  know  at  once  the  secret  of  its  power. 
It  taught  that  truth  which  the  ancient  wisdom  had 
reached  after  in  vain  amidst  the  decay  of  the  ancient 


The  Nicene  Age.  31 

worship  ;  a  positive  faith  in  the  one  manifested  God. 
It  taught  what  was  at  once  the  highest  truth  of  science, 
yet  the  simplest  personal  fact  for  the  behever  ;  the 
unity  and  spirituality  of  such  a  "Being.  But,  beyond 
this,  it  taught  in  this  truth  of  the  revealed  God,  the 
Maker  and  Father  of  men,  the  unity  of  mankind,  the 
promise  of  a  pure  civilization,  which  should  be  based 
on  the  relation  of  men  to  each  other  as  members  of 
one  body.  Such  a  truth  inspired  a  love  of  virtue  above 
the  easy  eudsemonism  of  the  Epicurean,  yet  gave  a 
human  heart  to  duty  beyond  the  Stoic  fatalism.  Its 
conception  of  a  Supreme  Being  was  as  lofty  as  that  of 
Plato,  yet  it  did  not  end  in  the  fanciful  mysticism  of 
Platonism.  And  so  to  the  mind  of  the  people  as 
to  the  philosopher,  the  truth  of  this  Incarnate  Son 
of  God  was  a  revelation  indeed.  It  united  the  pure 
monotheism  of  the  Hebrew  wath  the  belief  that  lay 
beneath  the  gross  polytheistic  fancy,  the  need  of  a  per- 
sonal and  revealed  Deity.  Philosophy  had  one  exoteric 
worship  for  the  crowd,  and  another  esoteric  creed  for 
the  sage.  Christianity  united  them.  We  have  here, 
then,  our  truest  solution  of  that  wonderful  fact  of  the 
success  of  this  religion,  humble  in  its  birth,  without 
rank  or  influence,  over  the  ancient  world.  In  it  we 
have  the  fusion  of  all  that  was  best  in  the  Semitic  and 
the  Greek  civilization  ;  and  it  came  at  the  fulness  of 
time  in  the  history  of  mankind,  when  only  this  fusion 
was  possible,  when   Roman  conquest,  commerce,  and 


2,2  EpocJis  in  Church  History. 

culture  made  the  world  ready.  Yet  if  we  thus  see  In 
it  such  a  development,  it  leads  us  surely  to  a  stronger 
faith  in  its  divine  character.  I  need  not  repeat  here 
the  famous  argument  of  Gibbon,  to  explain  it  by  nat- 
ural causes.  All  the  superficial  reasons  he  has  given 
are  long  since  surpassed  by  the  keener  criticism  of  the 
modern  school.  It  is  the  position  of  Baur,  in  his  mas- 
terly sketch  of  the  social,  scientific,  and  religious  phe- 
nomena of  that  age,  that  Christianity  was  only  the 
historic  product  of  it.  But  his  whole  line  of  argument 
is  to  my  view  the  best  proof  of  the  opposite.  We  an- 
swer him,  as  we  do  the  modern  evolutionist,  who  finds 
in  the  harmony  of  the  cosmic  forces  only  a  blind  play 
of  molecules.  If  we  find  in  those  decaying  elements  of 
faith,  philosophy,  social  order,  gathered  in  the  sepul- 
chre of  a  Roman  empire,  no  higher  life  to  quicken 
them,  the  result  would  have  been  impossible.  The 
truth  of  the  unity  of  God  was  not  the  product  of 
scientific  culture.  Philosophy,  as  we  have  seen,  did 
not  reach  it.  It  ended  in  denial.  Heathen  religion 
did  not  reach  it.  It  ended  in  "  an  unknown  God." 
Christianity  alone  gave  it. 

With  this  view  I  can  enter  clearly  on  the  sketch  I 
propose  of  the  doctrinal  and  ecclesiastical  growths  of 
the  Nicene  age.  I  shall  begin  with  Its  theology,  for  it 
is  above  all  in  its  influence  on  the  belief  of  mankind 
that  we  find  the  special  task  of  early  Greek  Chris- 
tianity.     The    Latin   Church    of  the    next    age    had 


The  Nice  lie  Age.  33 

a  more  practical  mission.  But  let  us  grasp  clearly  at 
the  outset  what  we  mean  by  Nicene  theology.  It 
conveys  to  many  minds  little  else  than  a  word-battle, 
a  shadow  fight  of  centuries  over  the  dogmas  of  the 
Trinity,  a  question  between  Athanasian  and  Arian 
over  a  diphthong.  If  it  were  this,  I  should  not  spend 
long  pages  on  it.  But  if  you  have  seized  the  guiding 
thought  of  my  lecture,  you  have  its  meaning.  It  v.^as 
the  task  of  this  earliest  age  to  teach  the  truth  of  God 
as  Christ  revealed  Him.  The  Incarnation  was  thus  the 
first  foundation  principle  of  the  Christian  doctrine. 
It  came  first  in  the  order  of  intellectual  thought  as  well 
as  of  belief.  All  other  truths  of  a  divine  revelation, 
of  the  nature  of  man,  of  moral  evil,  of  redemption,  of 
life,  were  only  further  expositions  of  this  central  fact. 
And  thus  the  Nicene  theology  from  beginning  to  end 
was  chiefly  busied  with  this;  although  its  great  think- 
ers contributed  much  of  deep  and  pure  reasoning  in 
the  whole  range  of  the  new  learning.  Theology,  the 
doctrine  of  God,  thus  gained  its  name  from  the  special 
study  of  that  time.  It  opens  the  great  cycle  of 
Christian  science. 

But,  again,  it  was  in  this  deepest  question  of 
Theology  that  the  Christian  mind  must  have  its 
meeting  point  with  the  culture  of  the  classic  world. 
The  problem  of  God,  of  absolute  Being,  the  relation 
of  the  phenomenal  w^orld,  above  all  of  man  as  an  intel- 
ligence, to  a  moral  nature,  as  it  is  always  the  highest 


34  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

problem  for  science  even  in  an  age  when  physical 
studies  strive  to  push  it  aside,  this  problem  sums  the 
philosophic  thought  of  Greece  from  Thales  to  Plato  and 
Proclus.  Christianity  must  answer  it.  It  must  lead  the 
ancient  wisdom  from  its  endless  abstractions  into  posi- 
tive truth;  but  in  doing  so  it  must  enter  with  intellect- 
ual mastery  into  the  whole  range  of  subtle,  conflict- 
ing ideas  which  rent  the  Greek  schools.  A  Christian 
theology  was  the  necessary  step  in  education.  The 
shallow  naturalist,  like  the  author  of  the  Conflict  of 
Science  and  Religion,  who  knows  much  about  the 
spectroscope,  but  little  about  the  mind  of  any  century 
before  the  nineteenth,  brings  against  this  Christian  age 
the  charge  of  having  put  back  by  its  cloudy  metaphys- 
ics the  brilliant  progress  in  astronomy  and  geometry 
already  begun  in  the  Greek  schools  of  Alexandria. 
But  the  charge  is  easily  answered.  Geometry  could 
not  give  the  Greek  or  Roman  mind  the  highest  truth 
it  needed.  It  found,  as  our  physicists  perhaps  will 
find,  that  the  knowledge  of  atoms  and  motion  will  not 
supply  the  want  of  the  one  living  God.  The  Nicene 
Church  did  not  make  theology  ;  it  only  entered  into 
the  real  mental  and  moral  conflict  of  its  time.  But, 
again,  we  may  thus  understand  the  special  direction 
which  the  Greek  theology  took  in  its  scientific  growth. 
It  was  distinctly  Platonic  in  its  ideas  and  method 
of  reasoning.  Nor  is  the  reason  hard  to  find.  Plato- 
nism  among  all  the  schools  of  Greece  furnished  the 


TJie  Nicene  Age.  •  35 

most  positive  doctrine  of  God,  as  the  Eternal  Being, 
the  one  ground  of  absolute  truth,  good,  beauty  above 
phenomena.  It  came  nearest  to  the  truth  of  Chris- 
tianity on  its  intellectual  and  moral  side.  And  thus  it 
was  most  natural  that  well  nigh  all  the  thinkers — 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  Justin,  Origen — who  shaped  the 
early  theology,  were  either  taught  or  were  in  sympathy 
with  the  philosophic  training  of  the  Platonic  school. 
Epicurean  men  of  letters  scorned  it.  Stoics  were 
seldom  won  by  Christianity,  although  there  is  such 
marvellous  likeness  between  St.  Paul  and  Seneca  in 
many  ethical  precepts.  The  fatalism  of  the  Stoic 
found  no  kindred  with  the  truth  of  a  Divine  Father, 
and  the  freedom  of  men.  Even  the  philosophy  of 
Aristotle  did  not  enter  into  the  Greek  Christian 
thought,  although  it  shaped  the  whole  scholastic  mand 
of  the  Latin  Church  in  later  time  :  and  the  fact  is  very 
striking,  as  it  shows  us  the  grand  difference  between 
the  more  living  spirit  of  this  early  Greek  theology  and 
the  logical  petrifaction  of  Aquinas.  But  yet  more,  the 
one  great  truth  of  the  living  God,  the  Creator  and 
Ruler,  had  already  In  an  earlier  Jewish  form  entered 
into  the  noblest  Greek  culture,  through  the  teaching 
of  Philo  In  Alexandria.  We  have  In  Philo  one  of  the 
gifted  minds,  without  whom  we  cannot  understand 
Nicene  theology.  In  him  we  see  the  most  fanciful  of 
allegorical  Interpreters,  who  turned  the  Old  Testament 
Into    a   series    of    symbolic    myths,    and    bequeathed 


3 6  •    Epochs  in  CJmrch  Histo7y. 

through  Orlgen  the  same  fatal  method  for  the  New ; 
yet  at  the  same  time  his  profound  genius  brought  the 
monotheistic  ideas  of  the  Hebrew  into  contact  with 
the  speculative  thought,  before  foreign  to  his  own  race. 
It  is  in  Philo  that  the  stern,  solitary  Jehovah  of  the 
ancient  covenant  becomes  the  one,  living,  spiritual 
Essence,  who  manifests  his  thought  through  his 
Logos,  his  emanating  Word,  to  the  reason  of  men. 
Moses  and  the  seers  are  the  revealers  of  the  divine 
truths,  embodied  under  the  outward  form  of  Hebrew 
tradition  and  ritual.  All  the  lofty  thoughts  of  a 
Plato,  a  Pythagoras,  a  Socrates,  were  only  the  voices 
of  this  one  Eternal  Reason  ;  echoes  of  the  one 
revelation. 

Here,  then,  is  the  point  of  view  from  which  we 
must  study  the  growth  of  Christian  theology.  It  gives 
us  the  true  idea  of  its  development.  I  am  anxious  at 
this  point  to  state  it  clearly,  for  without  it  we  cannot 
have  the  clue  to  the  labyrinth  of  dogmatic  history. 
There  is  on  the  one  hand  the  traditional  church  posi- 
tion, which  denies  all  scientific  growth  in  theology,  and 
looks  on  the  Nicene  dogma  as  a  doctrinal  deposit, 
handed  down  in  a  church  casket,  to  be  opened  at  the 
Nicene  Council.  It  is  the  view  affirmed  by  divines, 
from  Bull  to  Mohler.  It  claims  unity  in  Trinitarian 
doctrine  from  the  Apostles  to  Nice  ;  but  it  forgets 
that  while  there  v/as  unity  in  the  living  belief  •  in 
Christ,  the  belief  was  not  and  could  not  be  formulated 


The  Nicene  Age,  -  37 

in  symbol,  save  by  the  long  struggle  of  Christian 
thought ;  and  therefore  we  must  find  much  crude  and 
even  disjointed  opinion.  The  essential  truth  of  God  in 
Christ  is  one  ;  theology  is  progressive.  But  the  other 
view  is  that  of  the  Anti-trinitarian  school,  from  its 
earlier  form  to  the  more  scientific  theory  of  Baur. 
The  Nicene  dogma  of  the  Trinity  is  the  product  of 
Alexandrian  Platonism  ;  it  can  be  traced  clearly  back 
to  the  idea  of  the  Logos,  the  Creative  Word  in  Philo 
and  in  Plotinus.  It  is  the  wedding  of  monotheism  with 
the  semi-pantheism  of  the  Greek  m^ind.  But  if  you 
have  followed  my  analysis,  you  have  the  key  to  the 
error  of  this  theory.  The  Platonic  philosophy  supplied 
the  method  of  speculative  thought,  but  it  did  not  sup- 
ply the  Christian  truth  of  the  Incarnation.  The  faith  in 
such  a  Christ,  as  it  is  stated  by  St.  Paul,  contains  all 
that  the  Nicene  symbol  expresses.  It  is  not  even  true 
that  we  are  to  find  the  source  of  the  sublime  preface 
of  St.  John's  Gospel  in  any  Alexandrian  teaching.  We 
know  to-day  by  the  keener  researches  into  the  doctrinal 
systems  of  Palestine,  that  the  conception  of  God  as  the 
Creative  Wisdom,  the  inbreathing  Word,  was  ripened 
from  the  day  of  the  majestic  "  Book  of  Wisdom  "  in 
the  Jewish  mind.  In  a  word,  a  Christian  theology 
found  in  the  Alexandrian  Platonism  the  living  form  of 
expression,  because  the  truth  of  the  Incarnation  is  one 
with  that  highest  conception  of  the  human  intellect, 
which  demands  one  Spiritual  Being,  Who  is  yet  the 


38  EpocJis  in  Church  History. 

Creative  Word.  Undoubtedly  it  took  with  this  form 
some  of  the  mistaken  notions,  and  the  abstract  meth- 
ods of  the  Platonic  system,  as  we  shall  see  all  along 
from  Athanasius  to  Augustin,  but  it  took  its  deep, 
abiding  truth.  Reason  and  faith,  philosophy  and  the 
Gospel  met  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation. 

Let  us  turn,  then,  with  this  critical  key  to  the  rich 
literature  of  that  early  age.  It  is  indeed  the  best 
proof  of  its  change  from  Jewish-Christian  to  Greek 
culture,  which  we  find  in  the  interval  from  the  end  of 
the  Apostolic  time  to  this.  The  sub-Apostolic  period 
for  nearly  half  a  century  is  a  silent  one.  We  have 
the  first  light  on  the  growth  of  the  Church  in  the  so- 
called  Apostolic  Fathers.  But  while  they  are  of  im- 
portance, as  we  shall  see,  in  showing  us  the  organiza- 
tion which  had  become  defined  within  this  time,  there 
is  little  sign  of  intellectual  life.  It  was  the  day  of 
heroic  martydom  and  simple  piety.  There  is,  how- 
ever, one  feature  in  the  Epistles  of  Clemens  and  Barna- 
bas clearly  bearing  on  our  line  of  study.  Although 
no  distinctly  Pauline  thought  appears,  and  there  is 
much  childlike  Rabbinism  in  the  interpretation  of  the 
Old  Testament,  v/e  see  that  the  strife  of  Jewish  and 
Gentile  parties  is  almost  wholly  over.  The  spiritual 
nature  of  the  Gospel,  the  need  of  a  living  faith  and 
real  righteousness  are  fully  affirmed.  It  is  plain  that, 
while  the  Judaizing  element  remains  and  must  re- 
main as  a  narrow  traditional  spirit  always,  leading  to 


The  Nicene  Age,  39 

a  copy  of  the  past  in  p-riesthood  and  ritual,  the  Church 
had  become  Catholic.  But  now  we  see  a  fresh  birth 
of  intellectual  as  well  as  spiritual  life.  It  is  the  sign  of 
its  vitality  that  together,  within  one  hundred  years,  such 
minds  as  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Origen,  Justin  Mar- 
tyr and  Irenseus  appear;  minds  quite  unlike  in  some 
lines  of  theological  thought,  yet  one  in  their  chief  aim 
and  influence  on  the  culture  of  the  Church.  We  see 
that  in  the  former  half  of  the  third  century  the 
Christian  truth  of  the  Incarnation  had  entered  into  the 
Greek  mind.  It  called  out  these  earnest  thinkers,  hid 
in  the  philosophic  schools,  but  hungering  after  a  unity 
of  reason  with  living  faith  ;  and  it  is  in  them  we  have 
the  first  teachers  of  the  theology  which  busied  the 
Church  to  the  close  of  the  Greek  age.  I  do  not  mean 
that  all  the  teaching  of  the  Church  was  in  this  one  di- 
rection. Far  from  it.  There  are  to  be  found  several 
who  represent  the  traditional  learning.  We  see  in 
Papias  a  crude  revival  of  the  Jewish-Christian  millen- 
narian  fancy.  We  have  in  TertuUian  one  of  the  most 
fertile  minds,  joining  the  hardest  dogmatic  creed,  the 
material  view  of  the  Divine  nature,  utterly  hostile  to 
Greek  thought,  with  a  wild  Montanism.  But  both 
he  on  the  traditional  side,  and  Cyprian,  the  great 
organizer  of  the  Episcopate,  belong  to  that  West 
African  culture,  which  had  far  more  to  do  with 
the  shaping  of  the  Latin  than  the  Greek  Church.  It 
is  in  the  writers  of  whom  I  have  spoken  we  find  the 


40  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

scientific  thought.  Yet  we  are  not  to  look  in  them 
for  any  unity  of  system.  The  literature  of  this  first 
period  is  almost  wholly  in  apologetics,  called  forth  by 
attacks  of  Ethnic  philosophy,  or  in  refutations  of  Gnos- 
tic heresy.  Origen  alone  has  given  in  his  treatise  vrtpi 
apXGoy  ^n  approach  to  a  systematic  theology ;  and 
that,  although  admirable  in  dialectic  skill,  is  largely 
vitiated  by  the  allegorical  interpretation  which  he 
borrowed  from  Philo.  The  same  want  of  critical  science 
is  seen  in  all  the  scholars  of  this  time.  Their  ideas 
of  Sacred  or  Ethnic  history  are  worthless  in  this  re- 
spect. Nor  is  there  any  thorough  treatment  of  the  ques- 
tions of  anthropology  or  soteriology,  although  there  is, 
in  my  view,  a  far  truer  tone  of  thought  as  to  the  moral 
freedom  of  man,  the  capacity  of  knowledge  and  good- 
ness, than  in  the  dogmas  of  Augustin.  Unity  in  the  cen- 
tral truth  of  the  Incarnation  is  the  meeting-point  of 
these  Fathers.  Yet  even  here  we  must  guard  against 
the  misleading  view  of  their  exact  agreement  in  the 
subtle  definitions  of  the  Athanasian  time,  when  the 
theologian  must  walk  across  the  scimetar  edge  of  a 
word  into  the  paradise  of  orthodoxy.  Origen  leans 
more  to  the  idea  of  subordination  in  the  divine  nature 
of  Christ.  Clement  is  nearer  to  the  strict  unity  of 
essence.  It  is  when  we  study  their  position,  as  it 
united  them  in  the  contest  with  the  Greek-Pagan  sys- 
tems, that  we  know  their  positive  work.  The  personal 
unity  of  God  as  a  spiritual  Creator  and  Providence,  is 


TJie  Niccne  Age.  41 

maintained  as  well  against  polytheism  as  the  panthe- 
ism which  underlies  the  grosser  religion,  the  notion  of 
anima  nnmdi  symbolized  in  nature-worship.  It  was 
equally  defended  against  the  vague  theism  which 
ended  in  Neo-Platonic  fancies,  or  the  atheism  which 
identified  God  with  an  eternal  matter.  God  is  the 
one  self-conscious  Maker  of  the  worlds.  His  Logos  is 
the  pure,  spiritual  Power,  eternally  active,  forming  all 
things  after  the  idea  of  the  divine  mind,  present  to  the 
reason  and  conscience  of  men  as  the  archetypal  rea- 
son and  goodness.  Christ  is  thus  the  perfect  medium 
between  the  divine,  spiritual  Being,  and  his  spiritual 
creatures.  Yet  in  this  higher  view  of  a  Christian  phi- 
losophy these  thinkers  could  find  a  reconciliation  with 
all  truth  in  the  Greek  learning.  It  was  indeed  with 
most  uncritical  study  they  declared  that  Pythagoras 
and  Plato  had  borrowed  from  the  Hebrew  books  ;  yet 
that  absurdity  was  joined  in  some  of  them  with  a 
truly  spiritual  idea.  Justin  held  that  the  Logos  Sper- 
matikos  spake  in  the  noblest  of  the  Ethnic  sages. 
Socrates  was  a  Christian  before  Christ.  Clement  in- 
cludes among  the  true  Gnostics  all  the  wise,  Christian 
or  Pagan,  who  revealed  the  knowledge  of  God,  because 
the  divine  Nous  was  in  them.  We  have  here  the  pro- 
found anticipation  of  the  truth,  which  to-day  solves 
the  newly  opened  problem  of  comparative  religion. 
And  we  have  the  secret  of  the  new  Christian  science, 
which  in  that  time  replaced  the  Greek  Paganism.     It 


42  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

was   at    once   a   nobler    philosophy    and   a   positive 
belief. 

But  we  must  turn,  equally,  to  the  contest  of  the 
Fathers  with  the  Gnostic  systems.  I  cannot  here 
dwell  on  the  strange  variety  of  them  ;  but  I  must  show 
the  character  of  this  phase  in  Christian  development. 
We  have  seen  already  how  the  Eastern  theosophy 
entered  in  the  decay  of  the  Greek  culture.  It  was  not 
strange  that  it  should  mingle  also  in  the  formative 
time  of  Christian  thought.  We  have  the  germs  of 
such  theosophic  tendency  in  the  day  of  St.  John  and 
St.  Paul,  as  we  know  from  their  epistles.  I  do  not 
here  discuss  the  theory  of  the  Tubingen  critics,  who 
would  overturn  the  date  of  these  epistles  as  written  in 
the  later,  full-grown  Gnostic  period.  It  is  enough 
to  say  that  the  thorough  study  of  Jewish  theological 
sects  has,  in  my  view,  shown  those  Errorists  to  have 
been  of  a  Jewish,  ascetic  school,  earlier  than  these  of 
whom  I  here  speak.  But  in  this  century  the  influx  of 
Gnostic  systems  reached  its  height.  Amidst  the  fan- 
tastic chaos  of  their  sects,  we  may  conclude  with  Baur 
that  the  common  ground  of  them  all  was  a  mystic 
dualism.  The  Absolute  Being  was  conceived  of  as  an 
unknowable,  incommunicable  essence.  All  created 
things  were  of  the  impure,  evil  matter,  outside  the 
divine  sphere,  passing  by  a  series  of  debasements  to 
the  corrupt,  material  world  of  men.  The  Redeem- 
er, the  Christ,  was  a  divine  Power,  which  descended 


The  Nicene  Age,  43 

into  the  dark  matter  to  give  light  and  life.  All  souls 
which  by  the  purifying  of  the  mind  and  freedom  from 
this  sfross  human  life  had  become  Gnostics,  illuminated 
and  holy,  were  partakers  of  this  divine  spirit.  It  must 
be  clear,  even  from  this  glimpse  of  the  ground-ideas 
of  Gnosticism,  how  much  there  was  in  that  early  day 
of  fascination  for  fanciful  minds  in  this  mystic  system 
of  the  universe.  There  were  many  points  of  likeness 
with  Christian  thought.  Origen's  own  theory  of  an 
occult,  spiritual  meaning  in  Scripture,  led  readily  to 
the  notion  of  an  esoteric  Gnosis.  Clement  enlarges 
often  on  the  superiority  of  the  true  Gnostics,  the  divinely 
taught,  to  the  vulgar  minds.  We  need  not  wonder 
at  the  influence  of  these  sects,  and  the  long  struggle 
of  Christian  truth  with  one  after  another  of  their 
errors.  Manichaeism,  one  of  the  latest  types,  was 
held  by  Augustin  in  his  youth  ;  and  in  our  day  it  has 
been  praised  by  a  thinker  like  J.  S.  Mill,  as  the  only 
profound  theory  which  can  give  escape  from  atheism. 
As  we  study  the  Gnostic  errors  in  this  light,  we  shall 
seje  another,  perhaps  the  most  prominent,  feature  in 
their  relation  to  early  Christianity.  Indeed  it  goes 
far,  I  think,  to  refute  the  critical  novelty  of  Baur  as  to 
the  authenticity  of  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul.  We  have 
in  the  germinal  heresies  touched  in  the  New  Testament, 
as  I  said,  a  Jewish  type.  But  in  the  Gnosticism  of  this 
Greek  age  the  spirit  is  chiefly  anti-Jewish.  Doubtless 
in  the  Clementine  Homilies  there  may  be  a  relic  of 


44  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

the  magic  and  necromantic  elements  of  Palestinian 
growth  ;  and  in  certain  later  systems.  But  in  the  the- 
osophy  of  most  of  these  teachers,  especially  in  Mar- 
cion,  there  is  a  strong  antagonism  to  the  whole  religion 
of  the  Old  Covenant.  Jehovah  is  a  sort  of  Ahriman, 
a  creator  of  the  evil,  earthly  world.  The  rude  criti- 
cism of  Marcion,  and  his  arbitrary  choice  of  some  of 
the  Pauline  epistles,  clearly  show  how,  in  the  unsettled 
state  of  the  canon  of  Scripture,  such  a  movement 
could  ally  itself  with  an  extreme  Gentile  party.  In  a 
word,  we  must  not  regard  the  Gnostic  movement  as 
merely  a  philosophic  misgrowth  outside  the  Church, 
but  as  a  morbid  tendency  which  had  to  work  itself 
off  in  the  healthy  growth  of  the  Church. 

Here,  then,  we  know  the  real  worth  of  this  theolog- 
ical conflict.  In  it  the  practical  and  sound  life  of  Chris- 
tian truth  was  developed.  The  root  of  Gnosticism 
was  the  substitution  of  a  theosophy,  a  fantastic  system 
of  the  universe,  for  the  plain  revelation  of  God  in  Christ. 
The  nature  of  God  as  the  one  Maker  and  Father  of 
all,  the  nature  of  the  world  as  the  work  of  a  good 
Being,  of  evil  as  no  nature  but  of  moral  origin,  of  the 
divine  humanity  of  Christ  as  the  union  of  God  with 
man,  of  the  Christian  life  as  a  plain  code  of  belief  and 
duty, — all  these  were  perverted.  An  esoteric  m5'^sti- 
cism,  based  on  a  caricature  of  some  of  the  spiritual  ideas 
of  Christianity,  threatened  the  Church.  To  clear  up 
these  fatal  errors  was  the  aim  of  the  Fathers.     Knowl- 


The  Nicene  Age,  45 

edge  and  faith,  Pistis  and  Gnosis,  were  to  be  recon- 
ciled. Nothing  in  the  range  of  theology  is  more  ad- 
mirable than  their  statements.  The  grand  doctrine 
of  St.  John,  that  "■  God  is  Light,  and  no  darkness  at 
all ;  "  no  unknown  Bathos,  but  the  Father  revealed  in 
the  moral  attributes  of  love  and  holiness  in  the  person 
of  the  holy  Son,  is  the  ground  of  their  reasoning.  This 
moral  conception  is  applied  to  the  whole  problem  of 
human  life.  The  world  was  good,  and  evil  was  not  in 
the  nature  of  matter,  but  in  the  moral  perversion  of  the 
divine  design.  The  Incarnation  was  the  recognition 
of  the  original  goodness,  the  true  union  of  the  divine 
with  the  earthly.  It  was  by  no  intellectual  Gnosis  of 
occult  mysteries,  but  by  the  simple  faith  of  mind  and 
heart,  men  were  true  believers.  It  was  by  no  ascetic 
denial  of  nature  and  life  as  evil,  but  by  the  new  birth 
into  a  life  of  holy  dut}^,  that  men  were  made  one  Vv-ith 
God.  The  Church  was  no  little  sect  of  illiuninati,  of 
elect  mystics,  but  the  body  of  faithful,  loving  breth- 
ren. Such  was  the  fruit  of  this  conflict  with  Gnostic 
errors.  And  while  it  centred  in  the  truth  of  the 
Incarnation,  and  no  systematic  inquiry  into  the  prob- 
lems of  man,  free  will,  moral  evil  and  redemption  is 
found  in  the  Greek  Church,  there  was  developed  in 
these  Fathers  much  noble  thought  in  this  direction. 
Nothing  in  any  Christian  age  is  truer  than  the  claim 
of  Origen  and  Clement  for  the  moral  freedom  of  man, 
the  harmony  of  evil  with  the  divine  goodness,  the  ethi- 


46  Epochs  in  CJiurch  History. 

cal  view  of  the  atonement  and  of  Christian  activity 
in  the  whole  work  of  grace.  There  is  not  a  trace  of 
the  theory  of  decrees,  or  the  rigid  sacramental  system 
of  the  Latin  school  begun  by  Augustin.  Indeed,  I 
may  say,  that  most  of  the  ethical  ideas  which  are 
thought  characteristic  of  our  theology  since  both  Aug- 
ustin and  Calvin  may  be  found  in  germ  in  these  earli- 
est Fathers. 

If  you  have  followed  this  brief  analysis  of  the  aim 
of  the  early  Greek  Christian  theology,  it  will  give  you, 
I  think,  the  line  of  connection  with  the  whole  later 
development.  The  central  truth  of  the  Incarnation, 
as  it  was  thus  made  clear  in  its  difference  to  heathen 
and  to  Gnostic  systems,  Avas  seen  to  be  at  once  the 
ground  of  science  and  faith.  It  must  pass  from  these 
preparatory  contests  into  stricter  definition  within  the 
Church  itself.  All  these  varied  tendencies  of  opinion 
had  by  degrees  narrowed  into  two  new  defined  lines  of 
thought.  There  was,  on  the  one  hand,  the  disposition 
to  dwell  on  the  humanity  of  the  Christ,  on  his  subor- 
dination to  the  divine  Being,  which  appeared  in  all 
shades  of  doctrine  from  what  is  vaguely  called  Ebion- 
itism  to  the  ideas  of  emanation  or  generation,  such  as 
we  have  seen  already  in  Origen.  There  was,  on  the 
other,  the  strict  view  of  the  divine  unity,  tending  to 
merge  the  personality  of  the  Word  into  a  modus  or 
attribute  of  the  Godhead.  Sabellianism  was  the  most 
philosophic  type  of  this  school  of  thought.     The  rec- 


The  Nicene  Age.  47 

onciliatlon  of  the  two  was  necessary  to  the  mind  of 
the  Church.  It  was  no  merely  speculative  inquiry,  it 
came  from  the  nature  of  such  a  truth.  Yet  we  must 
not  so  forget  the  character  of  this  formative  age  as  to 
apply  to  these  opposite  thinkers  the  sharp  tests  of 
later  orthodoxy.  Heresy  was  not  a  defined  fact  until 
the  Nicene  symbol,  in  regard  to  such  variations  as  those 
of  Sabellius. 

Their  contests  were  rather,  in  the  striking  phrase  of 
Athanasius,  an  "■  athletic ; "  as  it  has  been  in  the  broader 
day  of  the  English  Church,  Avhen  the  semi-Arianism  of 
Clarke  and  the  Tritheism  of  Sherlock  were  the  watch- 
words of  much  theological  sharp-shooting,  but  did  not 
exclude  either  from  the  communion  of  the  body.  But 
the  position  of  Arius  at  last  brought  the  opposing  ideas 
into  clear  definition.  We  are  indeed  forced  to  do  poor 
justice  to  him,  as  to  all  the  great  leaders  of  the  opposi- 
tion in  that  day,  from  the  fact  that  so  little  remains  of 
their  writings  save  in  the  report  of  orthodox  fathers  ;  and 
we  know  too  much  of  the  unfairness  and  cruelty  of  that 
time  to  have  firm  faith  in  them.  Arius,  as  we  gather 
from  the  fragments  of  his  great  antagonist,  was  a  theo- 
logian of  keen  intellect,  and  undoubtedly  a  sincere  be- 
liever in  the  divine  nature  of  Christ,  as  well  as  a  man 
of  pure,  even  ascetic  life.  Yet  the  theological  hate  of 
the  Church  sought  to  blacken  his  name  as  not  only  an 
unlearned  pretender,  but  as  stained  with  sins.  It  was, 
however,  the  belief  of  this   thinker,   that   while    the 


48  EpocJis  in  CJmrch  History. 

Christ  was  divine,  above  all  angelic  powers,  the  unity 
of  God  demanded  that  the  Word  should  be  a  nriaj^ia,  a 
created  being,  the  first  born,  of  kindred  nature,  but  not 
of  the  one  unshared  Essence,  That  idea  was  by  the 
logic  of  Athanasius  the  denial  of  the  .true  divinity  of 
Christ.  It  made  him  of  necessity  a  6evr8f>o<;  Geog,  a 
demiurge,  and  thus  turned  the  Christian  doctrine  into 
only  another  polytheism.  Undoubtedly  the  argument 
of  Athanasius  was  true.  There  was  and  is  no  middle 
ground  in  theology  between  the  acceptance  of  the 
essential  divinity  of  Christ,  and  that  of  his  pure  human- 
ity. The  faith  in  the  God-Man  could  only  be  in  har- 
mony with  the  unity  of  God  by  the  faith  in  the  eternal, 
uncreated,  ever-living  Logos.  Theology  declared  in 
scientific  form  what  lay  in  the  original  faith. 


THE   LATIN    AGE. 

The  Latin  Church  has  been  the  riddle  of  Christian 
history.  An  empire  older  than  the  most  age-worn 
monarchy  of  Europe,  yet  supreme  over  half  the  con- 
tinent ;  the  mother  of  the  noblest  divines,  saints,  con- 
fessors, yet  of  the  vilest  v/ho  have  disgraced  humanity; 
the  cradle  of  art  and  letters,  the  champion  of  popular 
freedom  for  ages,  yet  now  the  sworn  enemy  of  all  prog- 
ress ;  seemingly  in  the  last  stage  of  decline,  yet 
always  with  fresh  life  in  its  veins  ;  an  exile,  yet  always 
returning  in  triumph  from  Avignon  or  Gaeta ;  under- 
mined in  its  very  citadel,  yet  making  a  greater  Rome 
in  America  ;  with  one  Head,  yet  for  seventy  years 
wearing  two  hostile  ones,  and  at  times  three,  like  the 
God  Siva,  on  the  same  neck  ;  Catholic,  yet  with  some 
features  freer  and  more  flexible  than  any  Protestant 
sect ;  spiritual  in  theory,  yet  the  most  secular  of  states, 
capable  of  intrigues  that  perplex  cabinets  and  keep  the 
world  in  war ;  changing  in  its  policy,  yet  unchanged  in 
its  dogmas,  its  arrogance,  its  majestic  tyranny  ;  ^uch 
a  pov/er  is  not  easily  understood.  It  is  a  problem  for 
the  statesman  as  much  as  for  the  divine.  And  it  has 
not  been  until  these  calmer  years  of  criticism  that  we 
3  49 


50  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

have  fairly  begun  to  solve  it.  Not  only  so,  we  have 
too  often  forgotten  that  its  vices  are  only  colossal  ex- 
amples of  what  we  find  in  Protestantism  itself.  Our 
Anglicans  have  been  the  sworn  haters  of  the  Papacy, 
while  all  the  while  they  have  held  notions  of  priestly 
power  and  sacraments  which  are  only  the  unhatched 
roc's  Qgg  of  the  system.  There  is  a  treatise  of 
Whately,  perhaps  the  keenest  of  his  pen,  on  "  The 
Errors  of  Rome  as  rooted  in  human  nature."  That  is  the 
key  which  unlocks  the  wards  of  the  history.  Nothing 
is  more  natural  than  that  the  bitter  remembrance  of 
crimes  and  persecutions  should  have  led  to  hatred  of 
Rome.  But  unhappily  it  has  too  often  blinded  our 
clear  judgment  of  that  past  era.  We  have  lost  sight  of 
the  secret  of  its  power.  We  have  not  weighed  the 
causes  and  the  contradictions  of  its  system.  In  that 
view  I  wish  to  study  it.  I  shall  not  indulge  in  any 
Scripture  imagery  of  the  scarlet  woman,  or  the  ten- 
horned  beast ;  I  shall  trace  its  growth  and  connection 
with  the  history  of  European  civilization.  I  shall  not 
attempt  to  crowd  the  record  of  more  than  ten  centuries 
into  a  lecture,  but  only  to  decide  the  question  before 
us,  its  place  in  Christian  history ;  its  claim  of  Catholic 
unity  and  supremacy. 

I  might  sum  it  in  the  parable  of  Christ:  "  When  the 
blade  was  sprung  up,  and  brought  forth  fruit,  then 
appeared  the  tares  also."  We  are  never  to  look  on 
this   strange  structure  of  a  Latin  system  as  if  it  shot 


The  Latin  Age.  51 

up  like  the  Pandemonium  of  Milton,  the  Satanic  crea- 
tion of  one  Church,  one  middle  age;  but  we  are  to 
recognize  in  it  a  distinct  growth  in  the  conditions  of 
its  time  ;  a  growth  of  many  diverse  features,  good  and 
evil.  There  are,  in  this  view,  two  periods  in  its  long 
career  carefully  to  be  examined.  There  is  one  when 
it  rose  to  its  natural  authority  as  the  centre  and  seat 
of  Christianity.  There  is  another  when  it  became  the 
usurper  of  the  throne. 

It  is,  then,  to  fix  your  thoughts  at  once  on  the 
leading  feature  of  this  history,  chiefly  the  growth  of  a 
great,  universal  statc^  that  we  are  concerned.  In  my 
last  lecture  I  showed  you  that  the  Nicene  age  was 
almost  entirely  one  of  doctrinal  formation.  Its  wor- 
ship and  polity  are  important,  but  secondary.  The 
theology  of  the  Incarnation  was  its  real  fruit.  It  is 
otherwise  with  the  Latin.  The  idea  of  a  Catholic 
structure  lay  in  its  genius  as  well  as  in  the  Providential 
conditions  of  the  time.  And  it  was  in  singular  har- 
mony with  this,  that  the  peculiar  features  which 
marked  the  old  imperial  Rome  passed  into  the  new, 
by  the  same  law  of  heredity.  Greece  made  philo- 
sophic systems,  but  no  lasting  commonwealth.  Rome 
borrowed  all  her  letters  and  philosophy  from  that  ideal 
soil ;  but  she  built  a  universal  empire.  Greek  Chris- 
tianity ripened  a  Nicene  symbol ;  Latin  Christianity 
built  a  Catholic  church.  It  is  this  feature  which  opens 
for  us  all  its  early  development,  down  to  the   time 


52  Epochs  ill  Church  History. 

when  the  East  and  West  were  divided.  We  have  no 
interest  whatever  in  that  myth  of  St.  Peter's  residence 
in  Rome,  which  our  learned  divines  still  study  with 
such  painful  zeal,  as  if  the  fate  of  the  Church  hung  on 
it.  All  we  know  is  that  it  was  a  very  early  church, 
planted  before  the  visit  of  St.  Paul :  nor  is  it  certain 
whether  it  was  more  marked  by  Jewish-Christian  or 
by  Pauline  elements.  There  are  signs  of  both.  It 
was  the  natural  wash  of  many  streams  of  life.  But 
for  us  the  important  point  is,  that  it  has  a  very  slight 
part  in  the  early  intellectual  movement  of  the  Church. 
It  had  no  scholars,  no  thinkers.  We  do  not  often 
enough  remember  this,  when  we  think  of  Latin 
Christianity  as  in  after  years  the  parent  of  scholastic 
learning.  It  was  from  North  Africa  the  theology 
came  which  has  become  identified  with  its  thousrht. 
Augustin  gave  to  the  Latin  Church  his  profound 
system,  Jerome  gave  it  the  •  Vulgate,  which,  as  has 
been  truly  said,  made  the  Latin  Church  more  catholic 
than  any  other  feature.  But  its  power  lay  from  the 
first  in  its  administrative  genius.  The  position  was  a 
commanding  one.  The  halo  of  the  old  metropolis, 
"  first  of  cities,  the  home  of  gods,  golden  Rome," 
hung  on  it  ;  and,  colony  though  it  was,  it  swiftly  grew 
to  a  first  rank  beside  the  elder  Patriarchates.  Already 
in  Tertullian  we  read  the  specific  eulogy  of  the  vener- 
able church.  Its  Bishops  had  the  eye  of  generals. 
They  had  no  genius  for  speculation,  but  kept  a  stolid 


The  Latin  Age.  53 

orthodoxy,  above  the  battles  of  Eastern  theologians ; 
and  by  sure  degrees  all  looked  on  them  as  arbiters, 
who  held  the  balance.  The  power  thus  grew  by  steady 
strides.  It  was  the  prophecy  of  that  legatine  right 
afterward  to  be  claimed  over  the  world,  when  the 
presbyters  of  the  Roman  Papa  were  allowed  to  sit  in 
council  with  Eastern  Bishops.  Imperceptibly  he  came 
to  be  recognized  as  a  monarch,  who  only  spoke  from 
his  throne  to  his  inferiors.  Then  came  the  great  dis- 
memberment of  the  empire.  The  Eastern  Church 
declined  with  the  Byzantine  power.  But  the  Latin  re- 
mained conqueror.  From  the  moment  Italy  was  left 
in  the  weak  hand  of  Honorius,  only  to  become  a  petty 
exarchate  of  Ravenna,  the  Bishop  of  Rome  was  the 
true  emperor.  He  alone  represented  the  power  which 
could  control  the  social  world.  It  is  from  this  point 
the  history  of  the  Latin  Church  becomes  memorable. 
It  passes  through  two  epochs.  The  first  is  the  struggle 
w^th  the  barbaric  hordes,  Goth,  Lombard,  to  the  new 
empire  of  Charlemagne.  The  second  is  the  feudal  era. 
In  each  it  is  the  leader  of  civilization,  and  wins  the 
homage  of  the  world.  Such  is  the  point  of  viev/  from 
which  we  can  impartially  explain  the  rise  and  the  per- 
version of  the  Latin  Church.  If  we  read  it  with  the 
eyes  of  Newman  as  a  development  of  a  great  ecclesi- 
astical institution,  lodged  in  a  supremacy  of  Peter,  it 
is  indeed  a  development  of  all  the  traditions  and  all 
the  vices  of  human  nature  in  a  priestly  state.     If  we 


54  Epochs  ill  Church  History. 

read  It  with  the  eyes  of  many  Protestants,  as  one  co- 
lossal fraud,  we  are  not  only  unjust  to  its  history,  but 
to  all  history  of  growth. 

I  turn,  first,  to  the  formation  of  its  doctrinal  system  : 
and  I  ask  you  to  observe  at  each  step  what  I  have 
said  of  its  original  character.  It  was  the  theology  of 
the  great  Augustin,  which  passed  into  the  whole  cult- 
ure of  the  Latin  Church  ;  and  it  is  important  to  know 
its  character,  that  we  may  understand  how  it  gave 
birth  to  the  after  system.  Nothing  can  show  the 
power  of  this  master  thinker  so  truly  as  the  fact  that 
he  not  only  was  the  teacher  of  that  church,  but  that 
Protestantism,  while  it  renounced  the  sacramental 
notions  which  had  sprung  out  of  his  view,  still  clung 
to  the  theory  of  election.  The  problem  of  Augustin 
was  the  nature  of  man  and  redemption.  He  saw  with 
deep  insight  the  relation  of  Christianity  to  the  moral 
condition  of  the  race  :  and  his  view  of  sin  as  a  race- 
evil,  an  inheritance  ;  of  Christ  as  the  Life  of  humanity, 
are  the  expansion  of  St.  Paul.  But  he  had  drawn 
from  Plato  his  doctrine  of  ideas,  of  man  as  one  being 
in  all  individual  existences  ;  and  this  he  applied  to 
Christian  reasoning.  Human  nature  was  organically 
as  in  Adam,  and  partakes  of  his  depravity.  It  was 
recreated  in  Christ,  and  incorporate  with  His  Body." 
It  was  grace,  then,  the  foreordaining  will,  which  saved 
man's  spirit  and  restored  the  original  righteousness, 
without  any  act  of  his  natural  power.    That  grace  was 


The  Latin  Age.  55 

given  through  the  supernatural  channels  of  the  Church; 
it  was  begun  by  regeneration  through  baptism,  and 
continued  by  participation  in  this  organic  unity  of  the 
body.  Such  was  the  mingled  truth  and  error  of  the 
system.  It  was  profound  in  its  grasp  of  the  great  moral 
unity  of  men.  But  it  led  on  one  side  to  an  extrava- 
gant view  of  divine  decrees.  It  led,  again,  to  the  no- 
tion of  the  sacraments  as  necessary  sources  of  divine 
life  ;  and  this  had  its  peculiar  outcome  in  the  Latin 
Communion.  Yet  it  is  not  till  centuries  afterward 
that  we  see  it  appear  in  the  scholastic  system.  It  is 
in  its  general  influence  I  aim  to  trace  it,  as  its  mingled 
truth  and  error  passed  into  the  early  education.  The 
Church  had  in  it  all  the  faith,  the  learning,  the  morality 
of  its  time.  But  it  had  in  it  also  the  admixture  of  five 
centuries  ;  many  superstitions,  which  we  have  seen 
grow  in  the  Eastern  communion ;  it  had,  besides,  the 
tendency,  inherent  in  its  character,  to  the  formation 
of  a  strong  hierarchical  organization. 

The  one  earliest  fruit  of  its  energy  was  its  mission- 
ary work  among  the  savages  of  the  North.  It  is  the 
noblest  chapter  of  that  history.  Although  in  after 
years  the  ancient  churches  were  made  vassals  of 
Roman  power,  yet  it  is  at  the  first  the  record  of  a  zeal, 
a  self-sacrifice,  which  defied  all  dangers.  In  three  hun- 
dred years  Christianity  had  pierced  from  Gaul  to  the 
forests  of  Germany  ;  had  subdued  Goth,  Vandal  and 
Visigoth,  in  Spain,  and  in  Africa.     From  597  to  735— 


56  Epochs  ill  Church  History. 

Augustin  to  Bede — all  the  scattered  kingdoms  of  Eng- 
land had  become  converts ;  the  old  Paganism  was 
gone,  and  anew  world  of  life  had  sprung  up.  Ulphi- 
las  gave  his  Mseso-Goths  the  Scriptures,  the  germ  of 
education.  Columba  and  Boniface  established  their 
missions  amidst  the  tribes  beyond  the  Rhine.  Ro- 
mance has  nothing  more  marvellous  than  their  history. 
Wherever  they  went,  there  followed  civilization.  All 
Europe  became  a  network  of  dioceses,  each  of  which 
acknowledged  the  mother  of  them  all,  the  one  West- 
ern Patriarchate.  It  is  from  this  beginning  we  see 
arise  the  intellectual  life.  With  Alfred  springs  the 
first  of  the  Universities,  which  to-day  are  the  pride  of 
England.  With  Charlemagne,  that  brilliant  age  of 
France,  which  survives  the  convulsions  of  feudalism  ; 
and  out  of  it  came  in  ripe  time  scholars  like  Lanfranc 
and  Anselm.  A  new  literature  is  created  by  the  in- 
fusion of  this  fresh  Teutonic  thought.  Modern  letters 
and  arts  are  born  from  this  cradle.  It  is  so  we  are  to 
estimate  the  best  influence  of  the  Church.  What  in- 
justice for  us  to  charge  on  it  the  motley  superstitions 
of  such  a  time,  and  forget  that  it  only  partook  them  in 
common  with  all  !  What  absurdity  to  speak  as  if  the 
Christian  clergy  had  done  nothing  through  ages  for 
science,  when  almost  all  the  treasures  of  Greek 
thought  had  been  destroyed  by  barbaric  hands,  and 
in  the  schools  of  learning  the  possession  of  a  copy  of 
Virgil  or  of  Strabo   was  the  rarest   of  relics  !     There 


The  Latin  Age.  57 

could  be  no  science  in  our  sense  of  the  word.  It  was 
by  the  most  legitimate  causes  that  the  power  of  the 
Latin  hierarchy  grew.  It  was  impossible  that  it 
should  not  gain  an  almost  supernatural  influence  in  a 
time  Avhen  the  nobleman  could  not  read,  and  all  art 
and  letters  dwelt  in  the  cloister.  We  may  smile  at  its 
narrow  range  of  learning.  In  that  day,  when  the  the- 
ology of  Augustin,  the  meagre  science  gathered  from 
Boethius,  the  logic  and  rhetoric  taken  from  an  imper- 
fect translation  of  Aristotle  constituted  all  scholarship, 
it  was  an  infallible  teacher.  The  Bible  was  in  its 
hands,  because  none  else  could  read  it.  It  was  out  of 
these  sources  that  there  sprang  the  first  products  of 
European  genius.  The  marvellous  creations  of  Gothic 
art  were  inspired  by  them.  It  was  the  religion  of  that 
day,  narrow,  yet  lofty  and  devout,  which  reared  the 
nave  with  its  colossal  cross,  rising  arch  on  arch,  from 
lancet  window  and  flowered  stem-like  columns  to 
vaulting  roof;  and  which  toiled  age  on  age  till  the  spire 
pointed  as  a  visible  finger  to  the  invisible.  Painting 
grew  from  the  illuminated  missal,  and  the  early  poetry 
from  the  monkish  rhyme.  To  them  we  owe  the  history 
of  this  time;  the  drama,  as  well  as  the  books  of  devo- 
tion. And  thus  we  may  fairly  judge  the  institutions 
of  that  age.  Take  the  greatest,  the  monastic  orders. 
They  were  the  outgrowth  of  a  piety  which  belonged 
to  such  social  chaos.  The  cloister  was  the  only  retreat 
for  one  who  would  not  be  a  rude  soldier,  and  there 


58  Epochs  in  CJiurcJi  History. 

was  a  more  civilized  type  in  the  common  life  of  those 
brotherhoods  than  in  the  savage  Greek  anchorite.  As 
we  read  in  Montalembert  the  early  history  of  Bene- 
dict, who,  A.D.  480,  became  the  great  organizer  of  the 
Latin  orders;  of  that  wild,  charming  retreat  of  Subri- 
aco,  and  Monte  Cassino,  where  the  enthusiastic  monk 
gathered  his  followers  for  labor,  for  study,  for  inspir- 
ing toil,  we  cannot  but  see  the  fairest  picture  of  that 
stormy  time.  That  life  was  not  an  idle  or  sensual  one 
as  afterward.  The  Benedictines  have  left  us  grand 
folios  of  learning.  Anselm  and  Bede,  Bernard  and 
Thomas,  and  Roger  Bacon,  theologians,  men  of 
science,  painters,  missionaries,  were  bred  in  the  clois- 
ter. 

And  thus,  further,  as  we  pass  to  the  worship  of  that 
Latin  Church  in  this  long  interval,  we  have  the  same 
characteristics.  There  are  seen  the  ripening  seeds  of 
superstition.  We  find  from  the  fifth  century  onward 
the  strange  medley  of  piety  and  mythology.  The  sac- 
raments were  magic  rites  ;  the  Host  a  supernatural  mar- 
vel ;  relic  and  pilgrimage,  the  myths  of  patron  saints, 
and  of  purgatory  all  grew  in  the  rank  soil.  But  the 
religion  was  in  all  these  features  the  copy  of  the  times. 
It  belonged  to  an  age  when  even  a  Roger  Bacon 
believed  in  the  transmutation  of  base  metal  to  gold  ; 
when  Mandeville  thought  Jerusalem  the  centre  of  the 
earth  ;  when  Godfrey  consulted  the  stars  to  know  the 
fate  of  a  battle.     It  is  not,  therefore,  to  be  said  that  it 


The  Latin  Age.  59 

was  a  religion  without  intellectual  or  spiritual  life. 
There  were  the  sweetest  virtues  of  the  household, 
tenderness,  rapt  devotion,  charity ;  yet  there  were 
intolerance,  social  pride,  fierceness,  childish  supersti- 
tion. No  age  was  capable  of  stranger  contrasts :  it 
could  produce  a  St.  Louis  and  a  Simon  de  Montfort. 
Peter  Damian  was  the  gentlest  of  divines,  yet  he  be- 
lieved in  the  persecution  of  the  Jews.  St.  Bernard 
shrank  from  the  profligate  court  to  his  retreat  in 
Clairvaux,  yet  he  preached  to  the  Crusaders  that  to 
slay  a  Mussulman  was  to  purchase  heaven.  St,  Louis 
drank  the  wine  from  the  altar  to  neutralize  a  draught 
of  poison  ;  yet  he  v/as  an  accomplished,  devout  king 
and  father  of  his  people.  Gregory  the  Great  ransomed 
slaves  in  the  market,  yet  he  held  a  married  clergyman 
as  the  vilest  of  sinners.  The  Church  was  superstitious, 
but  it  was  the  moral  power  of  the  world.  It  alone 
gave  the  serf  the  opportunity  to  win  a  place  above  the 
noble.  It  m.ade  the  mailed  baron  reverence  a  might 
above  brute  force.  It  opened  the  only  refuge  for 
defenceless  women.  It  established,  in  what  our  Saxon 
forefathers  called  the  time  of  ttnlaw,  a  social  order;  and 
while  we  laugh  at  the  modern  dreamers  who  would 
renew  those  ''ages  of  faith,"  we  recognize  in  it  the 
teacher  of  the  world. 

And  so,  last  of  all,  we  can  understand  the  crowning 
feature  of  the  fabric  :  the  Papacy.  It  was,  of  course, 
a  growth  mingled   Avith   ambition.     It  was  the  neces- 


6o  Epochs  in  Church  History, 

sary  result  of  the  whole  development  of  a  priestly 
state.  But  we  are  never  to  forget  that  it  came  also 
from  the  conditions  of  such  a  world,  and  that  it  re- 
mained while  those  chaotic  years  lasted,  the  pillar  of 
social  as  well  as  religious  strength.  The  Roman 
Bishop,  after  the  invasion  of  Alaric,  alone  represented 
the  learning  and  law  of  the  past ;  and  in  him  the  rude 
barbarian  saw  the  presence  of  the  only  power  to  which 
he  could  yield.  Nor  was  it  only  worldly  craft  that  led 
him  to  his  alliance  with  Clovis  ;  it  was  the  forecast  of  the 
statesman,  which  saw  the  future  of  a  new  civilization. 
And  when  the  empire  of  Charlemagne  fell,  the  Pontiff 
held  up  the  tottering  fragments  of  the  feudal  time. 
We  see  all  Europe  sink  as  in  some  prehistoric  period, 
and  at  last  out  of  the  waste  bed  appear  new  states. 
It  was  the  Papacy,  which  in  this  time  of  disintegration 
kept  one  religion,  one  language,  one  law.  The  feudal 
form,  which  the  Church  then  assumed,  was  natural. 
Abbey  and  Cathedral  held  their  property  by  the  same 
tenure  as  the  noble.  There  were  mailed  Bishops,  and 
the  spiritual  Lord  was  ''  Comes  et  magister  militus." 
The  quarrelsome  barons  would  obey  only  this  one 
divine  Suzerain.  It  was  he,  who,  amidst  the  crushing 
wars,  could  ordain  a  Truce  of  God,  and  compel  for 
awhile  the  wrath  of  men  to  yield  to  the  voice  of  God. 
I  do  not  wonder  that  the  half  civilized  continent  saw 
in  Rome,  that  city  of  God,  of  which  Augustin  wrote  in 
his  great  work,  the  one  metropolis  of  faith  and   law. 


The  Latin  Age,  6 1 

Only  as  we  tlius  know  the  character  of  that  imperfect 
civilization  ;  as  we  see  the  good  wrought  by  the  Latin 
Church;  as  we  fairly  weigh  its  vices  in  the  scale  of  the 
age,  can  we  read  history  aright. 

And  now  we  turn  to  the  period  of  Its  decline,  and 
study  its  causes.  We  see  this  majestic  church,  after 
the  work  of  education  Is  done,  changed  to  the  despot 
of  Europe.  When  and  whence  was  such  a  change? 
It  is  impossible  to  say  ;  it  Is  of  great  moment  to  ob- 
serve that  we  cannot  fix  the  date  of  its  corruption  ; 
we  may  say  In  general  about  the  tenth  century.  But 
our  Interest  Is  not  In  the  precise  date,  It  Is  in  the  proc- 
ess. None  could  see  the  tares  until  the  blade  sprang 
up.  And  here,  then,  Is  the  true  point  of  view.  It  was 
when  it  had  passed  the  period  needed  for  the  educa- 
tion of  Europe  that  the  falsehood  of  Its  system  be- 
came manifest.  It  had  been  supreme,  because  a  feudal 
age  made  It  such  ;  It  now  claimed  to  be  the  divine,  per- 
petual sovereign.  Its  foundation  principle  was  that  of 
a  hierarchy.  It  is  not  a  communion  of  the  body  of 
believers,  which  keeps'  the  truth  and  order  of  Christ, 
yet  recognizes  the  right  of  the  personal  conscience,  and 
Is  thus  consistent  with  the  laws  of  all  social  growth, 
but  It  Is  an  ecclesiastical  state,  centred  by  divine 
command  in  the  see  of  Peter,  and  intrusted  to  the 
charge  of  a  supernatural  caste  of  clergy,  as  sole  dis- 
pensers of  truth  and  grace.  This  notion  of  the  Church 
was  not   of  Roman   orlgrln.     It  had    Its  roots   in  the 


62  Epochs  in  Church  History, 

Greek  Church,  as  we  have  seen.  It  had  Its  roots  hi 
human  nature.  But  it  was  this  Latin  Church,  by  its 
social  conditions,  which  developed  it  in  such  colossal 
form.  And  as  we  thus  trace  it,  we  shall  see  the  steps 
of  this  development.  We  see  it  in  the  result  of  its  doc- 
trinal system.  The  faith  of  the  Church  is  woven  into 
a  subtle  web  of  logical  reasoning;  and  every  idea  of  sin 
and  grace,  of  regeneration  and  sanctification,  which  had 
come  down  from  Augustin,  is  adapted  by  the  schools. 
Now  arose  the  sacramental  system  of  the  Church.  In 
its  visible  communion  alone  salvation  could  be  found ; 
in  this  the  infant  was  purged  from  original  sin  by  the 
grace  of  baptism,  and  fed  by  the  eucharist.  Next 
comes  the  order  of  the  seven  sacraments  :  each  period 
of  the  Christian  life  was  a  step  in  the  round  of  sacra- 
mental observance  ;  penance  washed  the  sin  after  bap- 
tism, marriage  was  solely  a  priestly  act,  holy  orders 
sealed  the  entrance  to  the  religious  vocation,  and  unc- 
tion dismissed  the  dying  soul  in  peace.  But,  above  all, 
the  dogma  of  transubstantiation  has  been  its  comple- 
tion. It  is  only  indeed  the  crowning  scholastic  sub- 
tlety of  that  time  ;  it  was  merely  in  accordance  with  , 
the  metaphysical  notion  of  universals  that  it  was  de- 
clared that  the  bread  and  wine  were  accidents,  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  substance.  Berengarius  op- 
posed it.  But  the  Latin  Church  was  right.  It  was  the 
logical  result  of  its  theory  of  the  sacraments,  as  it  is 
now  with   the   theory  of  eucharistic   adoration.     The 


The  Latin  Age.  63 

simple  communion  of  the  Lord  had  become  to  the 
credulous  believer  a  miracle  ;  the  priest  was  a  me- 
diator at  the  altar.  And  from  this  point  it  is  we  see 
more  and  more  the  separation  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church  from  the  life  of  religion.  I  do  not  speak  in  any- 
shallow  vein  of  the  scholastic  age  :  in  an  intellectual 
view  no  age  is  more  brilliant  in  pure  thought  than 
that  of  the  great  doctors  of  the  Latin  communion. 
The  Summa  of  Aquinas,  the  "  angelic  "  doctor,  is  to 
this  day  the  treasure  house  of  speculative  learning. 

But  the  truth  I  wish  to  impress  on  you  is  this,  that 
this  very  age  was  the  ripening  of  the  seeds  of  its  in- 
tellectual and  moral  decay.  The  Church  had  changed 
its  truth  into  Aristotelian  metaphysics.  Abelard,  in 
1079,  began  the  battle  which  appealed  to  reason 
against  dogma.  He  was  followed  by  a  succession  of 
keen  thinkers,  who  rent  the  tradition  in  pieces.  The 
result  was,  that  the  speculative  and  literary  element 
became  a  decomposing  one,  and  ripened  into  the 
most  pronounced  materialism  in  the  later  years.  The 
Church  could  not  reconcile  science  and  faith.  Its  re- 
ligious minds  more  and  more  turned  to  a  mystic  piety, 
like Bonaventura  or  the  saintly  A  Kempis.  It  became  a 
church  of  mere  tradition.  The  new  literary  life,  which 
began  to  bloom  in  Europe,  grew  to  be  its  enemy.  It 
smothered  the  growth  of  thought.  It  had  educated  its 
children,  it  sought  to  keep  them  always  children. 
But  it  is  the  same  decay  we  note,  when  we  see  the 


64  Epochs  in  CJmrcJi  History. 

divorce  between  the  Church  and  the  social  life.  The 
priesthood  hitherto,  amidst  all  corruptions,  had  been 
as  an  order  wiser  and  purer  than  the  laity.  It  reached 
the  point  where  it  became  only  a  triumphant  hier- 
archy. Each  step  is  visible  ;  not  till  the  tenth  century 
was  the  vow  of  celibacy  enforced,  and  the  order 
changed  to  a  caste  severed  from  all  socied  ties.  It 
was  resisted  boldly  by  the  German  clergy,  but  in  vain. 
Then  came  the  enforced  practice  of  confession.  It 
made  an  army  of  sacred  spies,  who  intruded  into  the 
secrets  of  all,  from  prince  to  peasant.  One  by  one  the 
monastic  orders  had  grown  debased  ;  the  mendicant 
friars  swarmed  over  Europe.  They  displaced  the  old 
and  healthier  relation  of  parochial  clergy,  and  it  was 
at  last  only  a  mob  of  ecclesiastics,  who  obeyed  the 
word  of  the  Pontiff.  Learning  had  fled  from  the  con- 
vent, it  was  the  nest  of  vices. 

And  so,  last  of  all,  the  Papacy  reached  its  undis- 
guised claim.  It  was  the  keystone  in  this  perfect 
Roman  arch  of  the  hierarchy.  Each  stone  was  ce- 
mented, one  on  the  other,  and  we  can  sec  the  mason- 
ry. The  first  was  when,  A.D.  607,  Boniface  declared 
himself  Universal  Bishop.  The  next,  A.D.  752,  when 
the  Pope  became  king-maker  in  the  election  of  Pepin. 
The  third,  A.D.  840-50,  when  the  Decretals  gave  the 
sanction  to  that  universal  claim.  The  fourth,  when, 
A.D.  1030,  the  Pope  secured  the  choice  by  authorizing 
his  election  only  by  the  higher  clergy.     Hitherto  the 


The  Latin  Age,  65 

Emperor  had  a  right  of  choice  ;  the  lower  clergy,  alsOj 
and  even  the  city  and  the  soldiery,  had  made  their 
Papa.  The  system  was  now  complete.  Ultramon- 
tanism  was  born,  like  Richard,  with  its  full  set  of 
teeth.  But  its  inherent  falsehood  was  not  visible 
while  the  feudal  age  lasted.  Dr.  Dollinger  can  show 
us  to-day  the  myth  of  the  Decretals,  but  none  disput- 
ed them  then.  It  was  only  when,  A.D,  1073,  Hildebrand 
boldly  assumed  this  full-grown  power  in  his  great 
struggle  with  the  empire,  that  the  world  began  to  see 
what  the  Papacy  meant.  His  two  decrees  revealed  it. 
One,  the  assumption  of  all  investitures  in  himself,  gave 
him  supreme  power  over  the  national  liberties  ;  the 
other,  his  enforcement  of  celibacy,  made  the  clergy  a 
Pontifical  army.  From  that  point  the  Papacy  became 
the  despot  of  Europe.  Innocent  III.  said, ''I. am 
Vicar  of  God."  Gregory  IX.  called  the  Pope  ''  Lord 
of  the  world."  And  from  that  point  began  the  strife. 
It  was  still  long  before  it  could  be  ended.  We  read 
with  wonder  to-day  of  Henry  IV.,  the  haughty 
emperor,  after  years  of  battle,  bowing  before  that 
mysterious  interdict,  which  fell  like  a  pestilence  over 
Germany,  waiting  in  the  cold  winter  to  kneel  at  last  a 
slave  at  the  feet  of  the  stern  Pontiff.  But  the  blow 
roused  Europe.  The  sacred  right  of  national  freedom 
awoke.  It  was  nov/  a  mortal  struggle  between  the 
Holy  Roman  Church  and  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  : 
that  social  principle,  as  Bryce  has  so  thoroughly  traced  . 


66  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

it,  which  had  skimbered  since  the  day  of  Charlemagne, 
but  never  died  ;  that  recognition  of  the  divine  law  in 
social  order,  which  Dante  so  boldly  saw  and  uttered  in 
his  De  Monarchia,  the  conflict  of  Guelph  and  Ghib- 
elline,  that  was  to  last  till  the  Reformation,  It  was 
renewed  by  Frederic  II.  and  the  IXth  Gregory,  in 
1228.  It  has  another  phase  with  Philip  the  Fair  of 
France.  It  ends  in  the  fact  that  the  Papacy  becomes 
the  vassal  of  the  monarchies.  The  fourteenth  century 
sees  the  Pontiff  at  Avignon  ;  and  when  the  "  seventy 
years  of  captivity"  are  done  he  returns  to  Rome,  to 
be  henceforth  only  the  Italian  King.  Pope  and  Anti- 
pope  wrestle  in  the  arena,  and  Europe  enters  on  its 
career  of  freer  national  development.  The  Papacy 
survived,  but  its  empire  was  really  gone. 

We  gather  here  the  whole  history.  I  do  not  antic- 
ipate the  results  of  the  Reformation.  I  only  show 
the  causes  of  its  decline  in  its  own  natural  develop- 
ment. Rome  bore  the  Reformation  from  its  own 
womb.  It  had  changed  Christianity  into  a  priestly 
tyranny  over  reason  and  conscience.  It  had  become 
the  foe  of  progress.  It  had  debased  social  morals. 
It  had  usurped  the  rights  of  civil  and  national  order. 
It  was  not  only  a  dead,  but  a  decomposed  body, 
and,  like  the  bloated  corpse  of  the  Norman  Conqueror, 
it  burst  when  forced  into  its  coffin,  and  filled  the  air 
with  its  foul  gases.  Nothing  could  be  more  deplor- 
able than  the  state  of  civilized  Europe  for  these  two 


The  Latin  Age.  6/ 

hundred  years  before  the  Reformation.  There  was 
no  reform  within  itself.  For  centuries  it  had  been 
attempted  :  scholars,  divines,  even  good  Pontiffs  had 
protested  against  the  growing  vices,  yet  in  vain. 
Arnold  of  Brescia  and  Savonarola  had  died  in  the 
breach.  Council  on  Council  had  ended  in  nothing. 
It  was  on  the  feast  of  All  Saints,  A.D.  1414,  in  the  quiet 
town  of  Constance,  that  one  of  the  last,  and  in  every 
feature  the  most  memorable  of  the  great  assemblies, 
gathered.  It  came  to  judge  one  of  the  vilest  of  the 
Popes ;  a  murderer,  an  adulterer,  a  robber,  whose 
crimes  had  filled  the  Church  with  h-orror.  To  that 
august  conclave  flocked  Sigismund,  the  dignitaries  of 
Germany  and  France,  Gerson,  the  learned  and  devout 
scholar,  D'Ailly,  the  brave  spokesman  of  French 
liberties,  nobles  and  divines.  The  assembly  opened 
with  a  solemn  mass ;  weeks  passed  in  angry  conflict, 
until  at  length  the  Pope  was  deposed,  and  from  the 
lips  of  Gerson  there  was  proclaimed  the  sacred  right 
of  the  whole  Church  in  Council  to  judge  the  Vicar  of 
God. 

Yet  though  it  seemed  the  herald  of  reform,  it 
passed  away  without  one  substantial  change.  It  is  the 
fearful  commentary  on  the  Latin  Church,  that  while 
the  foul  Pontiff  was  exiled,  John  Huss,  the  pure 
apostle,  betrayed  by  his  own  monarch,  was  led  forth 
by  the  voice  of  the  whole  Council,  with  the  assent  of 
Gerson  himself,  to  burn  at  the  stake.     In  that  funeral 


68  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

pyre  was  lighted  the  flame  which  was  never  to  go  out 
till  Christian  liberty  should  burn  up  the  despotism  of 
Rome  with  unquenchable  fire. 

And  here,  then,  we  solve  the  whole  problem  of 
Latin  Christianity  in  past  and  present.  History  solves 
it.  It  is  the  most  momentous  question  of  our  times  ; 
and  it  needs  a  clear  understanding.  We  have  our 
theorists  to-day,  alike  of  the  modern  Romish  and  of 
the  Anglican  school,  who  mislead  us  with  their  views 
of  Catholic  unity,  and  our  Protestants,  who  read  with 
one-sided  eyes  the  lesson  of  the  past.  But  if  I  have 
at  all  fulfilled  my  purpose,  you  will  grasp  the  historic 
principle.  There  is  one  central,  pervading  falsehood, 
on  which  the  whole  foundation  of  Roman  despotism 
rests.  It  is  tJie  idea  of  a  priestly  supremacy  over  the 
Christian  conscience,  which  assumes  the  place  of  Christ 
the  Head,  and  builds  up  its  theocracy  of  dogma  and 
authority  as  the  one  Church  of  God.  It  is  that  unity 
which  for  ten  centuries  lasted  in  Europe,  because  it 
was  only  through  its  long  and  rich  experience  it  could 
gain  the  education  it  needed  in  religious  and  social 
order.  But  that  unity  was  in  its  very  nature  only  a 
step  toward  the  larger  growth.  Within  the  bosom 
of  Christian  society  and  Church  there  were  struggling 
two  forces,  one  of  a  living,  divine  order,  the  other  of 
a  human  despotism.  It  is  thus  we  can  do  full  justice 
to  the  past.  It  is  folly  to  forget  that  amidst  the 
darkest  ages  of  superstition  there  has  been  always  the 


The  Latin  Age,  69 

true  Church  of  Christ.  We  claim  our  unity  with  all 
that  is  true  in  its  theology  and  institutions  ;  we  can 
never  surrender  the  wisdom  of  an  Augustin  or  an 
Anselm,  the  holiness  of  a  Bonaventura  or  an  A  Kempis : 
never  deny  the  power  of  a  religion  which  could  create 
so  many  sages  and  saints  of  the  past,  or  thousands 
even  like  a  Fenelon  or  Pascal,  who  lived  and  died  in  its 
communion.  Nay,  more,  it  is  essential  to  our  Protest- 
antism to  claim  as  a  historic  fact  that  the  Reforma- 
tion did  not  hurt  the  unity  of  the  Church,  but  only  its 
usurpation ;  that  its  true  unity  was  only  gained  when  the 
frozen  winter  of  Latin  Christendom  was  loosened,  and 
the  living  streams  of  learning,  of  social  freedom,  of  pure 
faith  broke  forth  in  'the  new  spring  tide  of  Europe. 
This  is  the  true  catholicity  of  history. 

But  we  are  to  separate  its  form  from  that  false 
catholicity  which  in  any  form  would  identify  the 
truth,  or  order,  or  unity  of  the  Christian  Church  with 
the  system  of  the  Roman  communion.  We  are  to 
recognize  the  essential  falsehood  of  the  whole  principle 
of  a  hierarchy  on  which  it  is  built.'  It  is  no  part  of 
my  design  to  dwell  on  the  late  history  of  the  Church. 
It.  is  from  first  to  last  the  illustration  of  one  undis- 
guised, logical  principle.  Up  to  the  Reformation, 
there  was  a  Catholic  Church,  however  corrupt ;  since 
then  it  is  only  the  Roman  Obedience.  It  is  simply  a 
sect,  great,  magnificent  in  resources,  in  craft,  with  all 
the  prestige  of  its  antique  traditions,  all  the  semblance 


*jO  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

of  primitive  teaching,  of  authority,  but  a  sect.  The 
Council  of  Trent  settled  its  creed  and  policy.  The 
organization  of  Loyola  made  it  a  serried  phalanx. 
That  counter  Reformation,  which  Ranke  has  so  pro- 
foundly sketched,  gave  it  for  a  while  a  seeming  purity, 
a  new  life  to  recover  its  lost  possessions.  But  it  only 
welded  it  into  a  compact  despotism.  A  century 
passed  in  battle.  No  chapter  of  the  past  is  so  full  of 
horrors  as  that  of  its  holy  wars,  its  inquisitions.  No 
power  has  ever  wielded  such  fatal  blows  as  the  Society 
of  Loyola.  It  has  been  cast  out  of  kingdoms,  but  it 
has  always  returned  in  triumph.  Not  a  single  claim 
of  its  despotism  has  been  relaxed.  Not  a  feature  of 
its  fixed  policy  has  been  surrendered.  It  has  had  two 
splendid  triumphs  since  the  first  years  of  the  Reforma- 
tion. The  close  of  the  French  Revolution  left  the 
world  in  a  wreck;  throne  and  altar  had  gone  down: 
and  in  despair  the  weary  world  rushed  back  into  the 
arms  of  the  church,  whose  corruptions  had  more  than 
all  else  begotten  the  atheism  and  the  social  ruin. 
That  reaction  was  the  death  of  even  the  last  of  old 
Galilean  liberties :  men  dared  no  longer  whisper  of 
Bossuet  or  Dupin.  Ultramontanism  absorbed  France, 
extinguished  the  hopes  of  the  continent,  and  kept 
Italy  in  chains  till  a  few  years  ago.  Its  second 
triumph  has  been  in  the  zeal  which  has  colonized  the 
new  world.  Nothing  can  so  show  its  adaptiveness  to 
every  policy.     It  can  maintain  absolutism  in  Europe, 


The  Latin  Age.  7 1 

it  can  talk  democracy  here.  But  whatever  its  mask, 
it  is  always  the  same,  always  true  to  one  aim,  the 
cause  of  that  Papal  supremacy  which  it  calls  the 
Church  of  God.  We  talk  of  the  new  and  astounding 
dogma  of  Infallibility.  But  it  was  the  just  claim  of  the 
Council  which  passed  it,  that  it  was  no  more  than  the 
Roman  Church  had  held  before.  Undoubtedly  it  was 
not  pronounced  before  in  council,  undoubtedly  great 
divines  had  always  questioned  it  ;  but  the  idea,  as  Mr. 
Newman  proved,  the  idea  of  a  supreme,  living  arbiter 
of  Christian  doctrine  is  only  the  logical  outcome  of  the 
system.  The  aged  man  who  sits  in  the  Papal  chair 
to-day  did  not  create  it.  He  only  spoke  aloud  the 
dogma  which  Aquinas  promulgated  long  ago,  and 
which  means  simply  this,  that  Ultramontanism  is  for- 
ever the  foe  of  all  Christian  freedom  of  thought,  all 
advance  in  Christian  knowledge. 

And  thus  we  stand  on  the  threshold  of  our  time, 
and  see  the  meaning  of  the  problem  for  us.  We 
should  weigh  it  well :  for  it  invokes  issues  some  dream 
not  of.  It  is  to  many  minds  a  source  of  vague  terror, 
to  many  a  miracle  of  power,  which  calls  forth  a  reluc- 
tant admiration.  It  seems  to  stand,  after  all  the 
battles  of  these  centuries,  as  impregnable  as  ever:  it 
covers  this  new  world  with  churches,  it  plots  new 
leagues  in  Europe  ;  and  while  it  has  lost  Italy,  and  its 
power  is  crippled  in  Austria,  Spain,  France,  it  dares 
fight  against  the  strength  of  Germany.  It  could  compel 


72  Epochs  ill  Church  History. 

obedience  even  in  the  face  of  an  Old  Catholic  seces- 
sion ;  it  draws  its  converts  from  Protestant  England, 
and  dreams  of  the  triumph  of  Ultramontanism.  But 
surely,  if  we  soberly  read  its  history,  we  need  not  be 
disturbed  by  such  facts.  It  is  not  strange  that  such 
a  power  still  survives.  It  lives,  first  of  all,  by  its  hold 
on  the  religious  faith  and  habit  of  a  large  part  of 
Christendom.  We  are  never  to  forget  that  the  Prot- 
estant Reformation  was  confined  almost  wholly  to 
those  German  or  Saxon  lands  where  there  had  been 
a  freer  revival  of  science  and  letters,  and  a  national 
life  never  so  fettered  by  Papal  despotism.  Nor  is  it 
strange  that  the  old  attachment  to  the  Church  of  the 
past,  the  memoirs  of  the  noblest  age  of  scholars  and 
saints,  the  Church  entwined  with  all  the  faith  and 
habit  of  the  people,  should  remain.  The  Old  Catholic 
movement  is  the  best  commentary  on  this  fact.  We 
cannot  look  save  with  love  and  reverence  on  men  like 
DoUinger  and  Hyacinthe,  who  could  not,  till  the  last, 
give  up  their  ancient  religion,  but  dreamed  of  a  re- 
formed Papacy ;  and  we  must  be  content  that  this 
movement  shall  work  itself  out  in  such  sober  ways  as 
may  bring  reform  without  destruction.  It  may  yet 
be  long  before  Rome  shall  lose  this  power,  which  it  has 
by  its  antiquity,  its  seeming  unity.  It  lives,  as  the 
mistletoe  that  keeps  its  own  green  bloom  by  the  sap 
it  draws  from  the  trunk,  but  strangles  the  gigantic 
oak  at  last.     But,  again,  it  has  its  life  by  the  influence 


The  Latin  Age.  73 

it  exerts,  beyond  its  own  communion,  over  the  mind 
of  many  in  a  time  of  religious  quarrel  and  unbelief. 
It  seems  to  rise  before  the  eyes  of  doubting,  weary 
men  as  the  one  only  representative  of  the  unbroken 
Church.  Every  age  since  the  Reformation  has  seen 
these  examples  of  conversion  from  Protestant  ranks. 
We  have  seen  it  in  our  own  day  in  noble  minds 
like  Nev/man,  seduced  by  the  dream  of  catholic- 
ity, and  dismayed  by  the  growth  of  religious  free- 
dom. It  can  blind  the  scholar  by  its  pretended  his- 
toric claims,  and  dazzle  the  imaginative  by  the  charm 
of  its  ritual.  There  is  a  compact  strength  in  its  organ- 
ization which  makes  it  far  more  effective  than  our 
free  Protestantism.  It  has  the  drill  of  an  ecclesiasti- 
cal army.  It  has  the  might  of  an  unscrupulous  logic. 
An  Anglo-Catholic  is  always  hampered  by  Protestant 
difficulties.  Rome  has  none.  It  proclaims  the  infal- 
libility of  one  head  ;  it  allows  no  freedom  of  opinion  ; 
it  utters  its  historic  falsehoods  with  the  voice  of  the 
oecumenical  council ;  it  knows  no  code  of  faith  or 
morals  save  implicit  obedience.  There  is  in  all  this  a 
power  which  overawes  the  world.  Mr.  Newman  tells 
us  in  his  Apologia,  that  in  his  unenlightened  evangeli- 
cal youth  he  fell  into  the  habit,  he  knew  not  how, 
when  he  went  into  the  dark,  of  making  the  sign  of  the 
cross.  It  was  a  pre-Catholic  instinct.  And  his  pas- 
sage into  Romanism  was  just  this.  It  was  his  magic 
charm  in  his  intellectual  dark,  and  it  is  the  apologia 

4 


74  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

of  almost  all  who  have  followed  him.  Romanism  was 
not  a  faith,  but  an  escape  from  thought.  And  we 
need  not  therefore  imagine  that  it  is  very  soon  to  be 
extinguished.  It  may  be  long  before  it  loses  its  hold 
on  the  half  instructed  intelligence,  the  imaginative 
and  the  credulous  worship  of  the  world. 

But  it  is  in  this  view  we  are  to  learn  the  true  lesson 
of  history.  We  are  not  to  fear  for  the  unity  of  the 
Church  of  God  ;  we  must  resist  the  discords  and  the 
loose  unbelief;  we  must  maintain  the  symbols  of  our 
faith,  and  the  historic  order  of  the  Church,  But  we 
are  never  to  forget  that  the  unity  which  was  de- 
stroyed in  that  Latin  Church,  was  one  that  cannot 
return.  The  Church  cannot  have  again  the  catholicity 
of  a  hierarchy.  I  have  quoted  Whately's  words,  that 
Romanism  is  the  development  of  the  error  of  our  hu- 
man nature.  It  is  this  we  are  to  learn  to-day.  It  is  the 
fallacy  that  cleaves  to  many  in  our  own  communion, 
who  will  oppose  Rome  by  making  the  Church  another 
copy  of  it.  We  reject  a  Papacy,  but  we  are  always  dream- 
ing of  some  form  of  visible  unity,  which  can  only  be 
gained  by  the  renunciation  of  the  essential  principles 
of  Protestant  freedom.  I  know  no  stranger  book  than 
the  Eirenicon  of  Pusey,  in  which,  after  proving  with 
the  wealth  of  learning  that  modern  Rome  has  substi- 
tuted Mariolatry  for  Christian  worship,  he  proposes  an 
alliance  v/ith  it  on  the  basis  of  Trent  ;  as  if  the  Mari- 
olatry he  exposes  were  not  the  very  development  of 


The  Lathi  Age.  75 

Trent.  It  is  this  blind  adherence  to  an  untrue  notion 
of  Catholicity,  this  reading  history  backward  as  we  do 
our  Hebrew  Bibles,  which  has  ended  in  the  reaction 
we  mourn  to-day :  this  that  leads  us  to  mourn  over 
the  Reformation,  to  look  with  fear  on  science  or  free- 
dom ;  to  coquet  with  Latin  priests,  and  mimic  Roman 
ritual.  That  dream  has  led  and  will  lead  again  into 
the  Roman  sepulchre ;  and  it  matters  little  whether  we 
go  thither,  or  stay  at  home  in  an  Anglo-Catholic  tra- 
dition. It  matters  not  whether  we  have  an  infallible 
Pope,  or  an  infallible  Episcopate,  a  mass  or  a  Eucha- 
ristic  sacrifice,  a  Roman  ritual  or  as  absurd  a  copy. 
We  want  the  unity  which  consists  with  an  open 
Bible,  a  sound  intelligence,  a  better  learning,  a  rea- 
sonable faith.  Our  fathers  bought  it  in  the  fires  of 
Smithfield,  and  baptized  it  in  the  baptism  of  their 
blood  ;  and  we  will  keep  it  forever.  The  strength  of 
the  Church  lies  in  this,  that  it  works  with  the  forces  of 
a  Christian  civilization.  That  is  our  principle.  It  is 
there  we  shall  fight  out  the  battle.  It  may  be  a  long 
one,  and  it  may  be  a  harder  one  than  we  imagine.  It 
may  be  another  holy  war  like  those  that  redeemed 
Holland  ;  if  so,  in  the  name  of  the  God  of  battles,  let 
it  come.  It  may  be,  and  I  trust  will  be,  a  nobler  battle 
than  that  with  an  Alva,  the  battle  of  learning,  of 
science  and  social  action.  I  believe  it  the  greatest 
battle-field  for  the  first  principles  of  religious  and  social 
freedom.     I  do  not  dread  it,  I  welcome  it ;  for  I  know 


76  Epochs  in  Church  History, 

that  neither  the  life  of  man,  under  God's  guidance, 
nor  the  march  of  history,  nor  the  Church  of  Christ 
goes  backward.  And  I  can  trust  in  Him,  to  whom,  in 
the  words  of  Bossuet,  "the  ages  of  man  are  moments 
on  the  disk  of  His  eternity,'* 


THE    REFORMATION. 

It  is  now  three  centuries  and  a  half  since  the  brave 
monk  of  Wittenberg  nailed  his  Theses  at  the  door  of 
the  church  :  a  new  world  of  faith,  of  social  purity,  of 
Christian  civilization  has  followed  it.  Yet  we  are  still 
really  in  the  mid-process  of  the  movement.  As  in 
one  of  the  grand  formative  epochs  of  our  globe,  we 
see  here  and  there  a  peak  or  a  solid  tract  rise  above 
the  waste,  yet  it  is  still  an  earth  "  standing  in  the  water 
and  out  of  the  water."  We  have  too  many  strifes,  too 
many  unsettled  questions  of  faith  and  church  to  judge 
with  soberness  the  whole  meaning  of  the  Reformation. 
There  are  those  who  say  that  Protestantism  is  in  its 
principle  religious  freedom  without  any  positive  Chris- 
tianity at  all.  This  is  the  meeting  ground  of  its  Rom- 
ish haters  and  its  unbelieving  defenders.  There  are 
those  who  still  identify  its  doctrine  with  their  own 
special  confessions,  and  find  it  in  Calvin  and  Luther. 
And  there  are  others,  especially  in  our  communion, 
who  call  it  only  a  negative  system,  and  doubt  whether 
it  has  done  any  lasting  good  for  the  unity  of  the 
Church.  I  belong  neither  to  its  vilifiers  nor  its  wor- 
shippers.    I  believe  the  only  way  to  understand  it  is 

77 


78  EpocJis  in  CJmrcJi  History, 

to  read  it  in  its  connection  with  Christian  history.  In 
that  hght  I  see  in  it  not  merely  a  strife  of  doctrine, 
but  a  step  in  the  whole  growth  of  a  Christian  civiliza- 
tion ;  the  ripest  fruit  of  the  whole  past,  and  a  fact 
bound  up  with  the  whole  future.  I  believe  we  can 
know  its  place  and  work  in  His  Providence,  Who 
guides  from  the  beginning  to  the  end.  If  I  can  give 
you  such  a  view,  I  shall  fulfil  my  design  in  this  lect- 
ure. And  I  shall  endeavor  to  trace  in  this  history 
the  character  of  the  movement  which  created  the 
Reformation  ;  the  positive  principles  which  lay  at  its 
foundation ;  the  causes,  good  and  evil,  which  shaped 
its  after  growth ;  and  the  manifold  results,  as  they 
reach  to  our  own  and  all  future  time. 

The  only  just  historic  view  which  explains  the 
Reformation,  is  to  regard  it  as  the  result  of  a  long, 
inward,  necessary  preparation  in  the  Church  itself. 
There  are. few  who  would  not  laugh  at  the  legend,  so 
long  maintained  by  Romish  champions,  that  the  faith 
of  Christendom  was  overturned  by  the  ambition  of 
Luther,  who  hated  the  Dominicans,  as  the  sole  retail- 
ers of  indulgences.  I  remember,  on  the  outer  wall  of 
St.  Stephen's,  in  Vienna,  among  the  rudely  carved 
sculptures,  there  stands  a  group,  the  Ecce  Homo,  in 
which  the  thorn-crowned  Saviour  appears,  rejected  by 
the  Jewish  crowd  ;  and  at  the  corner,  plainly  seen  in 
his  flat  cap  and  monk's  robe,  among  Scribes  and 
Pharisees,  is  Luther,  turning  away  with  lifted  hand. 


The  Reformation.  79 

That  is  the  way  In  which  the  Latin  Church  has  written 
history.  Yet  after  all,  it  is  not  much  worse  than  the  style 
of  some  of  our  own  critics.  It  is  still  the  view  (quite  par- 
donable in  an  Erasmus,  who  could  not  see  through  the 
smoke  of  the  battle)  held  by  many  of  our  Anglican  di- 
vines, that  this  great  awakening  of  Europe  might  have 
been,  instead  of  a  revolution,  a  change,  wrought  in  a 
peaceful  way  within  the  bosom  of  the  Church.  It  is  to 
meet  this  baseless  fallacy  that  I  turn  to  the  record. 
If  we  regard  such  a  movement  as  in  its  real  origin  only 
the  work  of  a  Luther  or  a  Calvin  or  a  Cranmer,  we  mis- 
understand it  utterly.  We  are  to  see  in  the  crises  of 
social  and  Christian  history  as  in  the  metamorphic 
rocks  or  the  terraces,  where  the  floods  have  left  their 
sea  marks,  the  work  of  slow  ages  and  internal  fires.  I 
have  shown  you  already  in  the  bosom  of  Latin  Chris- 
tianity itself  the  steps  of  the  decay  in  faith,  worship, 
and  social  order.  We  are  now  to  see  the  more  posi- 
tive growth  in  it  of  the  principles  which  ripened  into 
the  Protestant  Reformation.  And  for  this,  we  must 
go  back  to  the  century  before,  and  note  its  steps.  It  is 
not  chiefly  in  the  revolt  of  its  philosophic  minds 
against  the  scholastic  dogmas  ;  it  is  not  In  the  birth  of 
a  new  classic  literature  with  the  Renaissance,  not  In 
the  rising  of  the  ideas  of  national  and  social  liberty, 
that  we  find  the  source  of  Its  origin.  All  these  have 
their  influence.  But  when,  with  writers  on  civiliza- 
tion like    Buckle,   we    reckon   them,    and   forget   the 


8o  Epochs  in  CJmrcJi  History, 

deeper  religious  cause,  we  have  read  the  surface  only. 
Europe  would  have  ended  indeed  only  in  a  revolt 
against  all  Christianity,  or  in  that  new  Paganism 
which  we  see  in  the  Italy  of  Leo  X.,  had  it  not  been 
guided  by  a  more  earnest  spirit.  The  change  came 
from  within.  Although  a  Roman  hierarchy  had  lost 
its  hold  on  the  faith  of  men,  it  had  still  its  wise  and 
holy  men,  who  believed  In  the  truth  embalmed  in  it, 
and  strove  to  restore  it  to  its  purity.  Nor  is  it  merely 
of  those  scattered  sects,  like  the  Waldenses,  who  had 
already  separated  from  the  Church,  that  I  speak.  We 
may  well  indeed  remember  their  faith,  their  martyr- 
dom, their  undoubted  influence  in  the  keeping  of  pure 
religion.  But  we  must  neither  suppose  that  all  Chris- 
tian light  or  life  was  shut  within  their  little  Goshen, 
nor  that  so  vast  a  Reformation  could  have  sprung 
from  such  isolated  causes.  We  must  look  at  the  inner 
life  of  men,  who  in  the  quiet  of  their  cell  and  the 
humble  brotherhoods  of  the  common  lot,  studied  the 
Scriptures,  and  drank  there  their  inspiration.  The 
question  ofindulgences,  the  supreme  power  of  a  Papacy, 
the  palpable  strifes,  which  called  forth  a  Luther,  were 
not  as  yet  agitated.  There  is  not  even  any  open  rejec- 
tion of  the  dogmas  of  the  Church.  But  the  change 
appears  in  a  deep,  spiritual  feeling,  which  more  and  more 
retreated  from  the  scholastic  hardness,  and  the  mechani- 
cal worship  of  Rome,  into  a  life  of  inward  communion. 
We  take  as  its  earliest  type,  Thomas  A  Kempis,  in  the 


The  Reformation.  8i 

fourteenth  century ;  and  although  the  question  of  his 
authorship  may  not  be  fixed,  it  is  the  more  significant, 
for  The  Imitation  of  CJirist  ascribed  to  him  is  to  be 
looked  at  not  as  the  soliloquy  of  one  man.  It  is  **a 
voice  crying  in  the  wilderness."  1  grant,  with  Milman, 
that  its  title  is  a  sad  misnomer.  Its  ascetic  tone  shows 
too  well  how  the  Roman  religion  had  changed  the  Im- 
itation of  Christ  into  a  solitary  self-torment.  Yet, 
what  Christian  heart  has  not  felt  its  charm?  Sen- 
tence on  sentence  is  the  denial  of  all  dead  religion. 
"  Without  the  love  of  God  and  our  neighbor  no  works 
are  of  avail ;  empty  vessels  without  oil."  It  is  the 
first  step  in  all  such  religious  movement,  as  it  was  with 
a  Spener  afterward,  that  the  dogmas  are  no  longer  the 
life.  We  are  now  to  see  that  spiritual  feeling  passing 
into  clearer  consciousness.  In  the  next  generation  we 
have  a  class  of  men  who,  while  they  too  remained  in 
outward  union  with  the  Church,  had  renounced 
Roman  error.  We  place  here  Wyclif  in  England, 
Huss  in  Bohemia.  But  we  are  misled  when  we  think 
of  them  as  alone  or  few.  LoUardism  died,  because  it 
had  other  social  elements  which  were  visionary;  and 
Huss  was  burned.  But  their  ideas  were  already  ripe, 
and  it  is  one  of  the  most  significant  facts  that  it  waa 
in  Saxon  and  Teutonic  Europe  that  this  tendency 
arose.  We  can  never  understand  the  history  of  a 
Luther,  until  we  have  learned  its  preface  in  these,  who 
have  been  well  called  by  Ulmann  the  Reformers  be- 
4* 


82  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

fore  the  Reformation.  John  Wesel,  In  1420,  John  of 
Goch,  Tauler,  whom  Luther  called  his  master,  are  the 
noblest  in  that  noble  army  ;  and  above  all,  if  you  will 
know  the  spirit  of  the  coming  time,  read  the  Theologia 
Gernianica^  that  wonderful  book,  mystical,  incomplete, 
yet  the  very  marrow  of  living  Christian  truth.  They  did 
not  battle  in  the  great  field  of  Europe,  because  the 
issue  was  not  ripe ;  but  it  is  amazing  to  find  that  there 
is  not  a  single  truth  which  we  are  wont  to  think  the 
after  growth  of  Protestantism,  which  they  had  not 
uttered.  The  principle  of  justification  by  faith,  the 
falsehood  of  a  Roman  sacerdotal  system,  the  empti- 
ness of  tradition,  the  supremacy  of  the  Word  of  God, 
the  usurpation  of  the  Papacy,  all  Avere  fully  affirmed. 
Listen  to  the  bold  words  of  Wesel :  ''  He  who  be- 
lieves himself  justified  by  works  knows  not  what 
righteousness  is."  ''  We  acknowledge  a  Catholic 
Church,  but  Ave  place  its  unity  in  the  faith  and  the 
heavenly  Head,  not  in  Peter  and  his  successors." 

These  were  the  thinkers  and  teachers  of  the  latter 
half  of  the  fourteenth,  and  beginning  of  the  fifteenth 
century.  And  now,  if  we  turn  to  the  other  combined 
influences  which  went  to  the  result,  we  may  rightly 
understand  them.  It  is  the  demand  for  a  new  life 
which  we  see  in  the  thought  and  social  movement  of 
the  age.  The  history  of  the  Reformation  is  not  chiefly 
to  be  found  in  the  octavos  of  Mosheim  and  Gieseler; 
nor  in  theological  polemics.     It  is  in  the  breathing 


The  Reformation.  83 

picture  of  its  mind,  as  shown  in  the  action  and  atti- 
tude of  the  body  politic.  Take  up  the  whole  literature 
of  the  time.  It  is  a  protest  against  the  Church.  Turn 
to  Italy  itself.  No  reformer  uttered  more  fiery  satire 
than  a  Dante,  who  described  the  Pontiff  of  his  own 
day  in  the  pains  of  hell.  In  Boccaccio  you  have  the 
very  photograph  of  that  world  ;  no  stately  denuncia- 
tion, but  the  jest  that  tells  you  in  the  grossness  of  the 
writer,  the  gross  morals  of  the  Church,  which  called 
forth  his  sneer.  Turn  to  Germany.  It  appears  in  the 
biting  satire  of  EiilenspiegeL  Turn  to  England.  From 
the  Golias  of  Walter  Mapes,  who  crushes  Pope  and 
monk  under  his  rollicking  Latin  rhymes,  to  the  Vision 
of  Piers  Plowman — the  last  example  of  the  alliterative 
Saxon  verse — it  is  the  sins  of  the  Church  and  the  de- 
mand for  Reformation  which  is  the  burden  of  the  theme. 
No  power  more  directly  shaped  English  Protestantism 
than  the  hearty  verse  of  a  Chaucer,  himself  a  Lollard, 
that  held  up  to  the  laugh  of  a  people  the  seller  of  indul- 
gences, the  corrupt  prelate  and  the  filthy  friar.  Ballad 
and  comedy  preached  louder  than  the  pulpit.  Letters 
and  science  w^ere  the  unsparing  foes  of  Rome.  And 
thus  again,  in  the  new  growth  of  national  life,  we  see  the 
causes  which  compelled  the  Revolution.  Why  was  it 
that,  at  the  appearance  of  Luther,  we  find  in  Saxonyj  in 
the  Hessian  provinces,  princes  and  nobles  who  shield 
him  from  Emperor  and  Pope?  A  century  before  Huss 
had   no   protectors.      That   century  had   ripened    the 


84  EpocJis  in  Church  History, 

germs  of  national  liberty.  It  was  seen  that  the  coaH- 
tion  of  Charles  V.  and  the  Pontiff  meant  more  than 
the  ruin  of  a  humble  monk  ;  it  meant  the  riveting 
anew  of  the  Ultramontane  empire  over  the  world. 
The  cause  of  German  and  Swiss  religion  went  hand 
in  hand  with  that  of  civilization. 

One  fact  remains,  perhaps  the  most  important  of 
all.  At  the  same  time  when  the  monk  of  Wittenberg 
Avakes  all  Germany  (1516  to  1520),  Ulrich  Zwingli 
appears  in  Switzerland,  and  a  few  years  later,  in  1535, 
the  fiery  apostle  of  France,  John  Calvin,  begins  his 
work  in  Geneva.  There  is  no  concert ;  each  catches 
the  inspiration  of  the  new  time ;  each  finds  his  own 
response  in  thousands  of  waiting  minds.  The  Ref- 
ormation rises  almost  simultaneously  in  these  separate 
parts  of  the  continent.  Nor  only  there.  It  has  en- 
tered Sweden  with  the  heroic  Vasa  in  1529.  It  has 
gained  Denmark,  it  pushes  its  way  to  the  Netherlands 
in  1579.  And  there  is  no  fact  which  more  deserves 
our  undying  memory  than  that  among  the  earliest 
lands  where  it  blossomed  were  Italy  and  Spain.  Ven- 
ice, Ferrara,  where  Calvin  found  a  retreat  with  the 
noble  Renee  ;  Milan,  where  Curio  and  his  daughter, 
the  fair  and  learned  Olympia  Morata,  labored  only  to 
see  at  last  the  light  extinguished  by  the  Inquisition. 
It  was  one  torrent,  where  all  streams  poured  them- 
selves. It  was  the  lightning,  that  cometh  out  of  the 
East  and  shineth  even  to  the  West, 


TJie  Reformation.  85 

Here,  then,  we  learn  the  causes  of  the  Reformation. 
There  is  no  blindness  greater  than  that  of  those  who, 
because  of  the  accompanying-  evils,  have  urged  that  it 
could  have  been  better  wrought  out  without  the  disrup- 
tion of  Christendom.  It  is  a  pleasant  thing  to  see  how 
our  ecclesiastics  write  history,  how  fairly,  if  only  they 
could  have  the  guidance  of  nature  or  life,  the  volcano 
would  be  taught  to  flow  so  as  to  touch  no  church  on 
the  slopes  of  the  mountain,  and  the  cataract  be  drained 
off  through  the  canal  of  a  General  Council.  But  the 
Supreme  Ruler  does  not  always  work  after  this  pat- 
tern. That  effort  at  reform  had  been  tried  for  two 
centuries.  The-spiritual  despotism  of  Rome  could  not 
pass  without  a  death  struggle.  Nay,  it  was  its  own 
act  that  sealed  it.  The  Reformation  did  not  begin  in 
lawlessness.  Luther  appealed  again  and  again  to  a 
General  Council,  and  his  appeal  was  only  met  by  the 
reluctant  call  of  the  partial  Ultramontane  gathering 
of  Trent.  This  is  so  undoubted  a  truth,  that  even 
Palmer,  in  justice,  while  he  excludes  the  dissenters  of 
England,  calls  the  Lutheran  body  part  of  the  Church, 
because  it  still  waits  for  the  result  of  Luther's  appeal. 
It  is  indeed  a  most  amusing  style  of  justification, 
when  such  an  ecclesiastical  foot-rule  is  applied  to  the 
measurement  of  an  Alpine  chasm.  But  it  is  vrorth 
noting,  as  it  shows  the  orderly  spirit  of  the  great  his- 
toric movement.  It  was  Re-formation — not  revolu- 
tion.    Neither  Luther  nor  any  other  knew  the  grand- 


86  Epochs  hi  CJmrch  History. 

eur  of  their  own  task.  It  had  reached  the  pohit 
where  the  evil  became  intolerable,  when  God's  Vicar 
sold  pardon  in  open  market  for  Peter's  pence  ;  and  in 
that  hour  Luther  was  born  and  his  work  with  him. 

But  if  now  you  have  seen  the  necessity  of  the  Re- 
formation as  a  historic  growth,  you  have  the  key  of 
the  whole  subject.  For  it  opens  to  us  the  true  view  of 
the  question  as  to  the  fundamental  character  of  Prot- 
estantism. Was  it  only  a  negation  of  past  errors? 
Had  it  any  positive  basis  ?  It  is  the  often  repeated 
charge,  that  it  was  Protestant  merely,  and  nowise 
Catholic.  I  do  not  care  to  dispute  about  the  word 
Protestant.  It  was  the  battle-cry  which  from  the  day 
of  the  Diet  of  Spires,  1529,  rallied  the  hosts;  and  it 
meant  a  reality  for  men  who  bore  it  through  a  century 
of  strife,  even  if  it  be  to-day  a  jest  to  the  Churchman 
who  is  indifferent  to  the  birthright  which  his  fathers 
bought  with  blood.  Catholic  is  a  venerable  word. 
But  it  has  so  long  meant  Roman,  and  yet  means  so 
much  that  is  unreal,  that  I  do  not  cling  to  it  more 
than  to  the  word  orthodoxy.  Catholic  and  Protestant 
are  not  opposites.  Roman  and  Protestant  are  oppo- 
sites ;  and,  until  we  have  no  Roman  errors  to  protest 
against,  Protestant  will  remain  the  watch-word  of  the 
unended  battle.  But  it  is  the  fact  I  am  concerned 
witli.  The  Reformation  was  Protestant  ac^ainst  false- 
hoods,  but  it  clearly  uttered  principles  of  most  positive 
sort.     It  declared  that  the  Holy  Scripture  was  the  su- 


TJie  Reformation.  8/ 

preme  and  sufficient  oracle  of  necessary  faith.  It 
declared  that  faith  in  Christ  as  our  justifier  is  the 
ground  of  salvation.  These  are  its  two  pillars.  Now 
Ave  are  told  that  these  could  never  be  the  basis  of  unity. 
The  Bible  without  Church  authority  is  the  oracle  of 
sect.  The  doctrine  of  justifying  faith  is  the  plea  of  a 
lawless  spirituality.  My  reply  is,  that  this  is  utterly 
to  misconceive  both.  When  the  Bible  was  declared 
the  standard  of  authority,  it  was  meant  that  while  the 
infallibility  of  councils  and  traditions  was  denied,  the 
just  authority  of  the  symbols  of  the  Apostles  and  Nice 
was  affirmed.  Not  private  judgment,  but  a  sound  and 
true  Christian  learning  was  the  principle.  The  doc- 
trine of  justifying  faith  demanded  a  real,  personal  holi- 
ness, in  distinction  from  an  opus  operattcin,  but  in  this 
it  affirm^ed  the  principle  of  the  sacraments.  In  this 
respect  there  is  no  difference  between  our  English  Re- 
formers and  those  abroad.  There  was  no  separation 
from  the  Church.  There  was  the  re-affirmation  of  its 
spiritual  truths.  We  shall  see  presently  when  these 
are  changed  into  one-sided  systems,  but  here  I  simply 
ask  you  to  notice  that  the  position  was  clear  and  pure. 
Nor  were  the  great  leaders  radical  in  their  outward  or- 
ganization. Luther  kept  the  creeds  and  sacraments  and 
a  rich  liturgical  worship  ;  nay,  kept  a  doctrine  of  con- 
substantiation,  which  leaned  far  too  much  toward  the 
Latin  system.  Calvin  kept  infant  baptism  and  the  holy 
communion  not  simply  as  a  memorial.       If  you  will 


88  Epochs  ill  CJmrch  History. 

turn  to  the  writings  of  Bullinger,  you  have  in  him  and 
the  bulk  of  the  divines  of  his  day  the  doctrine  of  baptis- 
mal regeneration,  as  clear  as  in  our  office.  Not  a  feature^ 
of  visible  unity  was  given  up,  save  the  Episcopate;  but, 
if  this  were  a  loss  of  historic  strength,  it  is  absurd  to 
forget  its  cause.  In  England  the  national  movement 
bore  Avith  it  king  and  bishop ;  on  the  continent  the 
order  had  long  been  reduced  to  be  the  slave  of  the 
Papacy.  It  was  not  suppressed ;  it  did  not  lead,  but 
opposed  reformation,  and  so  took  no  root.  Calvin 
approved  the  office  in  England.  Sweden  kept  it.  All 
this  may  be  empty  to  those  who  make  it  the  pivot  of 
Church  unity ;  but  in  the  light  of  history  it  is  absurd 
to  talk  of  Protestantism  as  an  inorganic  concrete  in  its 
idea  or  reality.  When  Luther  was  asked  by  the  Ro- 
mish critics,  "  Where  was  your  Church  before  your 
Reformation  ?  "  he  said  :  ''  Where  was  your  face,  be- 
fore you  washed  it  this  morning?"  That  is  the  posi- 
tion of  the  Reformers  in  a  word.  The  Church  had 
broken  the  hierarchical  unity.  To  break  it  was  to  re- 
create the  true  unity.  The  Latin  organization,  to  use 
the  stately  figure  of  Coleridge,' was  the  unity  of  a 
frozen  lake,  where  mud,  stones,  driftwood  are  embed- 
ded ;  the  unity  of  the  Reformation  was  the  spring 
that  breaks  the  surface,  and  allows  the  organizing 
powers  of  life  to  readjust  the  whole ;  the  mud  and 
stones  sink  to  the  bottom,  and  the  stream  rolls  free  to 
crladden  the  new-born  banks. 


TJie  Reformation,  89 

Here,  then,  we  can  trace  the  good  and  evil  of  the 
growth.  The  Reformation  for  fifty  years  is  a  victory. 
It  upheld  the  war  against  Pope  and  emperor ;  it 
wrested  the  north  from  its  despots ;  and  within  itself 
its  life  was  undecayed.  But  now  we  see  signs  of 
change.  It  is  rent  by  jealousy  between  its  leaders, 
by  new  divisions  ;  and  the  counter  Reformation  wins 
back  many  of  its  provinces.  At  the  close  of  the  six- 
teenth century,  although  the  cause  has  triumphed,  it 
ends  only  in  a  partial  unity. 

What  was  the  cause  ?  It  is  easy  to  say,  with  most 
Protestant  historians,  that  it  lay  in  the  concentred 
strength  of  Philip  II.  and  the  Jesuits.  Undoubtedly. 
But  far  more  in  the  discords  within  itself,  which  crip- 
pled its  unity  of  resistance.  It  came  partly  from  the 
imperfect  character  of  all  such  movements.  No  age 
can  do  more  or  see  more  than  its  own  work.  Was  it 
strange  that  a  volcano,  pent  up  for  centuries,  should 
not  spend  at  once  its  surges,  and  that  men  must  wait 
till  the  vine  blooms  again  on  the  slopes  enriched  by 
the  lava  ?  But  this  is  only  a  general  view.  We  are 
not  to  excuse  the  defects,  but  to  study  them.  There 
v/ere  in  the  conditions  under  which  the  Reformation 
rose,  mingled  elements,  which  soon  came  to  the  sur- 
face. We  have,  first,  the  elem.ent  of  a  spiritual,  but 
wild  freedom.  It  appeared  in  the  Anabaptist,  and  was 
more  fully  developed  in  sects  like  that  of  Fox.  The 
breaking  of  the  visible  hierarchy  naturally  led  to  that 


90  Epochs  ill  Church  History. 

idea  of  an  invisible  church,  which  had  no  links  with 
the  historic  past.  The  Church  must  be  a  body  of 
pure,  converted  men,  or  those  who  claimed  an  inward 
illumination  of  the  spirit. 

Yet  it  is  not  in  these  lesser  and  earlier  sects  that  we 
see  the  graver  cause  of  disorganization.  Within  the 
greater  bodies  themselves  it  is  soon  visible.  Luther, 
Calvin,  Zwingli  was  each  a  giant  of  personal  power. 
Each  stamped  himself  on  his  movement,  and  about 
each  crystallized  a  system.  Discords  arose.  The  first 
difference  was  as  to  the  nature  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
The  great  doctor  of  Wittenberg  had  retained  much  of 
his  scholastic  thought  ;  and  while  he  gave  up  the 
mass,  he  upheld  against  the  Anabaptist  the  sacra- 
ments ;  but  he  had  kept  that  notion  of  the  ubiquity 
of  Christ's  twofold  nature  bequeathed  from  Augus- 
tin,  and  shaped  by  the  schools  before  the  formula  of 
transubstantiation  was  decreed.  It  is  one  of  the  con- 
tradictions of  his  system.  Zwingli  stood  on  the  sim- 
pler ground  of  Scripture.  Again,  there  rose  another 
strife  as  to  Luther's  doctrine  of  justification.  The 
Augsburg  Confession  had  not  prevented  this  debate. 
The  Formula  of  Concord,  1577,  was  but  a  stop-gap. 
Faith  was  not,  as  with  the  first  thought  of  the  Ref- 
ormation, a  living  act  of  mind  and  heart  ;  it  was  dis- 
connected from  its  real  connections  ;  severed  from  the 
life  of  real  holiness  it  became  the  pivot  of  a  system. 
The  foundation  of  Christian  truth  took  the  form  not 


TJie  Reformation,  91 

of  belief  in  Christ  the  justifier,  but  of  belief  in  a  for- 
mula of  justification.  It  was  so  with  Calvinism.  The 
great  thinker  had  cast  off  the  sacramental  system  of 
the  Latin  Church  ;  the  idea  of  a  divine  election  and  an 
invisible  unity,  based  on  this,  became  the  dominant 
thought.  It  was,  as  with  Gottschalk,  his  weightiest 
weapon  against  a  corrupt  body.  That  truth  was  a 
power  over  not  only  scholar,  but  believer.  It  armed 
the  devout  Huguenot,  as  he  rose  from  his  knees  to 
meet  the  enemy  ;  it  edged  the  pikes  of  the  Covenanter 
in  the  encounter  among  the  Scottish  hills.  But  that 
truth,  shaped  in  the  mind  of  Calvin  from  the  theology 
of  Augustin,  and  reasoned  out  by  an  abstract  logic, 
was  made  the  staple  of  an  iron  chain,  and  gave  his 
Christianity  a  metaphysical  tone.  And  thus  it  begat 
the  very  opinion  which  battled  with  it ;  Arminius, 
(1618),  dared  call  in  question  the  dogma  of  uncondi- 
tional decrees ;  and  in  Holland  the  movement,  that 
began  with  freedom  of  conscience,  ended  in  the  feud 
as  to  whether  a  Christian  man  should  believe  that  God 
settled  from  eternity  the  death  of  the  wicked,  or  only 
foreknew  it  to  be  their  choice. 

You  have  here  the  key  to  these  changes  In  Protes- 
tantism. I  claim  it  the  only  one,  when  we  so  study 
its  historic  meaning.  We  look  with  wonder  at  those 
strifes  of  supralapsarianism,  and  sublapsarianism  ; 
but  we  can  see  how  they  arose.  It  was  an  age  of 
theological  ideas.     I  know  it  will  seem  a  strange  solu- 


92  EpocJis  in  Church  History. 

tion,  but  I  beg  you  to  weigh  it  well,  when  I  say  that 
this  tendency  was  itself  an  inheritance  from  the  past. 
Each  of  these  questions,  as  I  have  shown,  was  simply 
a  remnant  of  scholastic  ideas.  The  Reformation  had 
rid  itself  of  the  ecclesiastical  falsehood  ;  it  had  not  yet 
seen  the  scholastic  root  of  much  of  the  doctrinal  sys- 
tem it  established.  It  puts  the  idols  of  its  schools  in 
the  place  of  the  idols  of  the  altar.  It  had  not  learned 
that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  not  a  metaphysical  notion  ; 
it  had  not  learned  tolerance  of  opinions  and  essential 
unity  amidst  differences.  This  spirit  was  the  parent 
of  its  virtues  and  vices  together.  The  Lutheran  was 
conservative,  intellectual,  but  without  sympathy  with 
any  outside  of  his  evangelical  communion.  Calvin  was 
logician,  scholar,  hero,  but  he  could  banish  Castalio  or 
burn  Servetus,  like  the  malleus  hereticoriim  of  past 
time,  and  rule  Geneva  as  if  it  were  a  cloister  of  Bene- 
dict. His  spirit  passed  into  his  disciples ;  it  created 
Puritans,  brave,  conscientious,  pure,  yet  men,  who 
could,  like  Colonel  Gardiner,  look  at  an  Arminian  as 
Anti-Christ,  and  think  a  surplice  a  rag  of  unrighteous- 
ness. 

But  we  are  not  to  forget  in  these  strifes  the  real 
life  of  Protestantism.  What  was  the  Reformed  Ger- 
many, the  new-born  Switzerland,  the  Huguenot 
France?  A  new  world  had  arisen.  Then  came  a 
household  purity,  grave,  but  sweet ;  an  education  in 
university  and  cottage!  a  social   thrift,  a  noble  free- 


The  Reformation.  93 

dom,  which  Europe  never  knew  before  ;  and  while  the 
theologian  was  too  often  discussing  election  and  rep- 
robation in  the  pulpit,  the  stout  seaman  of  Holland, 
the  German  farmer,  and  the  Huguenot  artisan  showed 
their  Protestant  faith  in  its  living  fruits.  Yet  the  tares 
were  with  the  wheat.  There  came  to  the  churches  of 
the  continent  the  period  of  a  formal  orthodoxy.  In 
the  communion  of  Luther  it  was  seen  in  a  learned  sys- 
tem, which  settled  every  minute  definition  of  justify- 
ing and  sanctifying  faith  ;  and  in  the  communion  of 
Calvin  there  were  too  many  who  lost  all  the  loving 
heart  of  the  Gospel  in  its  dogmas  of  an  arbitrary  Deity, 
and  a  fatalism  which  overturned  all  just  ideas  of  moral 
responsibility.  Let  me  not  be  misunderstood.  I  am 
making  no  wholesale  charges.  There  is,  as  I  hold, 
much  profound  truth  in  these  systems,  and  both  have 
their  noble  place  in  doctrinal  history.  But  I  believe 
each  has  its  marked  defect.  The  result  was  twofold. 
Much  of  the  spiritual  life  was  withered,  and  the  tone 
of  religion  became  dull  and  dry.  But  theology  lost 
yet  more  its  relation  to  the  intellectual  life  of  the 
time.  The  nut  had  ripened  in  its  protecting  shell  of 
doctrinal  science,  and  now  that  it  was  ripe,  and  the 
shell  broken,  the  doctors  were  more  anxious  to  save 
the  shell  than  the  kernel.  There  had  come  a  fresh 
spirit  of  inquiry  with  the  advance  of  science,  since 
Bacon  ;  and  the  philosophy  of  Descartes  overturned 
all  the  scholastic  ideas  of  the  mind.    There  was  needed 


94  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

a  change  in  the  old  methods  of  theological  reasoning. 
But  the  Church  knew  little  of  it,  although  the  same 
Reformation  had  given  birth  to  the  philosophy  of  the 
time.  It  defended  its  system  of  divinity  by  an  appeal 
to  faith ;  but  faith  no  longer  meant  a  personal  belief 
in  Christ,  but  the  acceptance  of  what  it  called  myste- 
ries above  reason,  but  which  yet  were  only  wrong 
metaphysics  in  disguise.  Then  grew  unbelief.  It 
was  stayed  in  Germany  for  awhile  by  the  fervid  piety 
of  Spener,  and  the  Church  seemed  to  renew  its  evan- 
gelical life.  But  the  movement  of  Spener,  like  that 
of  Venn  and  Wilberforce,  wanted  intellectual  strength 
to  meet  the  time,  and  became  a  sickly  pietism. 

Now  began  that  long  conflict  which  filled  the  eigh- 
teenth century.  It  was  a  bold  revolt  against  the  past, 
when  the  intellect  of  Europe,  tired  of  the  fables  of 
Rome,  and  the  quarrels  of  Protestant  sects,  plunged 
into  a  mocking  unbelief.  Let  us  remember  that  Ger- 
many did  not  beget  it ;  it  was  the  deism  of  England, 
it  was  the  scepticism  of  Hume,  which  ripened  into  the 
materialism  of  France.  We  owe  to  Germany  the  no- 
bler philosophy  that  mastered  it.  But  it  was  still  to 
be  a  battle  with  the  Christian  truth.  That  neology 
swept  away  not  only  the  Sacred  Scriptures  but  the 
foundation  principles  of  Revelation  with  a  remorseless 
criticism.  The  error  lay  on  one  side  in  the  unchecked 
speculation.  It  did  not  pause  till  the  idealism  of  Kant 
had  passed  to  Pantheism.     But  we  must  never  forget, 


The  Rcformatio7i,  95 

unless  we  would  hide  the  truth,  that  It  was  the  hard 
and  lifeless  theology  of  the  time  that  could  not  meet 
it.  When  Neander  was  asked,  whence  the  rational- 
ism of  Germany,  he  said,  ''The  dead  orthodoxy."  It 
is  a  volume  in  a  word.  The  only  answer  to  the  Ra- 
tionalism which  attacks  Christian  truth,  is  the  living 
science  which  shows  that  the  faith  does  not  contra- 
dict a  devout  reason,  which  recognizes  the  mysteries 
of  Revelation,  but  does  not  cover  up  its  metaphysics 
by  the  name  of  the  Gospel.  And  it  is  that  struggle 
which  has  led  to  the  true  result.  The  strife  is  not 
done.  But  it  is  so  far  advanced  that  We  can  know 
the  issue.  All  that  is  noblest  in  the  evangelical  Church 
has  come  forth  in  a  new  life  of  learning  and  piety. 
Biblical  criticism  is  born  of  it.  It  has  learned  by  the 
better  study  of  the  Scripture  to  verify  its  essential 
truth,  while  it  no  longer  reads  it  by  the  uncritical 
methods  of  the  past.  Doctrinal  history  is  born  of  it. 
It  has  learned  in  the  larger  history  of  doctrine  to  cor- 
rect the  one-sided  systems  of  Luther  or  Calvin.  The 
noblest  works  of  Christian  evidence  are  born  of  it.  It 
can  meet  unbelieving  science  by  Christian  science. 
We  have  many  errors  about  German  theology,  natural 
enough,  because  we  have  heard  chiefly  of  its  rational- 
ism, and  are  little  acquainted  with  its  true  results. 
But  there  is  for  a  true  scholar  nothing  more  cheering 
than  its  history.  There  is  no  domain  of  Christian 
learning  which  does  not  owe  to  it  its  best  thought 


96   '  Epochs  in   Church  History. 

to-day.  It  is  the  full  fountain,  whence  our  own  best 
generation  of  scholars  in  the  English  Church  have 
drawn  their  inspiration.  If  it  have  a  Baur  and  a 
Strauss,  it  has  a  Dorner,  a  Meyer,  a  Neander,  a  Rothe; 
a  host  of  champions,  as  eminent  in  philosophy  and  let- 
ters as  they  are  loyal  to  the  divine  truth  of  Christ. 

And  thus  in  this  knowledge  of  the  Protestant  Ref- 
ormation, we  fairly  sum  up  our  view  of  its  character 
and  its  true  position  to-day.  We  have  poorly  read 
the  lessons  I  have  striven  to  teach,  if  we  have  not 
found  what  gives  us  faith  and  hope  in  all  these  centu- 
ries of  thought  and  life.  Let  me  thus  gather  the  con- 
clusions of  this  history. 

We  have,  first  of  all,  in  the  whole  growth  of  Protes- 
tantism a  working  out  of  the  truth  essential  to  the 
real  unity  of  Christendom.  If  it  was,  as  we  have 
seen,  a  forward  step,  when  the  withered  unity  was 
broken,  then  the  intellectual  activity  it  awoke  was 
not  fruitless.  In  that  view  I  regard  the  theology  of 
Protestantism.  The  systems  of  Luther  or  Calvin  or 
Arminius  are  not  the  Gospel ;  nor  are  they  the  com- 
pleted theology  of  the  Church.  But  they  are  a  real, 
positive  advance  in  its  growth.  I  beg  you  to  ponder 
my  line  of  reasoning.  Theology  is  a  gradual,  pro- 
gressive knowledge.  The  truth  of  the  Word  of  God 
is  the  same.  Theology  changes,  but  you  go  forward 
always.  It  is  the  constant  addition  of  the  better  reading 
of  God's  word  ;  of  clearer  and  fuller  expositions  of  the 


TJic  Reformation.  97 

one  truth  of  God  in  Christ.  The  Latin  mind  had 
accepted  the  truth  of  the  Incarnation,  and  had  passed 
to  the  further  study  of  the  nature  of  man  and  the  facts 
of  sin  and  redemption.  But  it  had  imperfectly  grasped 
that  truth.  It  had  mingled  it  with  a  mechanical  view 
of  the  Church  ;  it  had  not  understood  and  could  not, 
the  personal  relation  of  the  believer,  the  relation  of 
the  living  faith  and  of  the  conscience  to  the  Revela- 
tion of  Christ.  This  is  the  contribution  of  Protestant 
theology  to  the  whole  Church.  It  had  to  show  the 
ethical,  the  spiritual  side  of  Christianity.  It  was 
to  examine  the  relation  of  that  side  of  Christian- 
ity to  the  Word  of  God  and  the  ordinances  of  the 
Church  ;  the  questions  of  liberty  and  law,  of  faith  and 
works,  of  reason  and  authority.  In  that  light  I  can 
see  the  unity  of  purpose,  that  runs  through  its  history. 
Does  a  bold  unbelief  claim  that  its  freedom  of  con- 
science means  the  renunciation  of  a  divine  Revelation? 
I  answer,  no.  It  means  that  a  divine  Revelation  is 
so  divine  that  it  can  bear  the  criticism  of  man.  Does 
a  lover  of  authority  complain  that  its  quarrelling  asser- 
tions are  a  proof  of  its  want  of  essential  unity  ?  I  an- 
swer, this  is  simply  to  forget  that  deeper  unity  which 
lies  beneath  the  surface  of  all  doctrinal  history.  Is 
Protestantism  only  "  Variations,"  as  Bossuet  said  and 
our  churchmen  repeat  ?  Each  variation  has  its  proto- 
type in  the  Latin  communion,  in  Thomist  and  Scotist, 
in  Jansenist  and  Jesuit.  Our  English  Church  has  had 
5 


98  Epochs  in  Church  History, 

its    Arians,    its    Swedenborgians,    its    Pelagians,    its 
Essayists  and  Reviewers,  its  Consubstantiationists  and 
its    Calvinists.       They  have    not    openly   divided    it : 
true,  but   they  have  been    in   it.     We  may  and   must 
rejoice  that  our  simpler  Creeds  and  our  practical  spirit 
have   had  their  wise   influence.     We   may  lament  the 
strifes,  but  we   cannot   cure   them  by  a  return   to  the 
age  of  an   unreasoning  faith.    Can  it  be  a  question, 
whether  we  had  better  take  the  risks  of  neology  and 
of  hostile  science,  or  renew  the   days  when   men  were 
burned  for  doubting   if  a  bit  of  bread  were   Christ's 
body  I     It  is  not  theology  we  have  to  fear,  it  is  rancor, 
one-sided  thought,  partisan  intellect,  sophistry,  learn- 
ing divorced  from   the  love   of  Christ   and   the  holy 
spirit  of  his  Gospel.     Can  we  have  truth  ^ave  at  the 
price    of  free    examination  ?      No,   I  hail    the   better 
day  of  our  faith.     But  it  can   only  be  when  we  have 
passed    through    the    struggle.       This    is  what  Prot- 
estant theology  is  to  teach  us.     We  may  well  learn 
its  lesson.      It    is    through    it  we  must    pass    to    the 
conclusion.       It   can   only   end  when   a  sound   learn- 
ing  shall   show  us   the  right  relation  of  the   essential 
Gospel  to  all  truth.      It  can  only  end  when  we  shall 
have  learned  in   the  struggle  the  true  unity  of  Rev- 
elation. 

And  so  it  is,  again,  with  the  visible  unity  of  wor- 
ship and  of  order.  I  cannot  look  on  these  severed 
bodies  of  Christendom    as    in    a    normal    or   healthy 


The  Reformation.  99 

state.     But  I  look,  beneath  the  surface,  at  the  unity 
which  lias  never  been  broken.     I  see  in  them  all  the 
parts,  albeit  with  a  languid    circulation,   of  the  one 
Body.     As  sects,  they  are  not  the  Church,  nor  are  we 
in    our  particular   features  ;    but   they  have  in  them 
the   elements   of  that   unity,  larger  than   themselves. 
And  when   in  that  light  I  take  up  the  history,  I  see 
in  the  Providence  of  God  that  it  is   thus   to  work  out 
the  larger  Catholicity  which  no  Latin  hierarchy  could 
fulfil,  and  vv^hich  could  only  come  by  the  free  activity 
of  a  Protestant  life.     We  may  lament  the  divisions  of 
sect,  we  must  lament  them,  so  far  as  they  have  sprung 
from   a   petty  rivalry,  or   some   narrow,  fragmentary 
Christianity  ;  but  we  must  never  forget  that  there  is 
another  side  in  which  we  may  and  ought  to  see  in  the 
evil  itself  the  working  out  of  the  m.ore  lasting  unity  of 
Christendom.     Each  of  the    great   bodies  of  Protes- 
tantism has  in  its  growth  developed  some  mighty  ele- 
ment of  Christian  power.     The  Lutheran   has  taught 
the  world   its   richest    thought,    amidst   its   unbeliefs. 
The  Calvinist  was   in   his   day  the  stoutest  champion 
against    ecclesiastical    despotism.     The    Baptist,   who 
beean    in   wild    fanaticism,    was    the    first    teacher   of 
tolerance.       The    Methodist    has    met    the   wants   of 
thousands,  whom  we  do  not  reach.     Each  has  had  his 
one-sidedness,  yet  each  has  brought  forward  a  feature 
of  the  Church  vrhich   shall  by  and   by  enter   into  the 
more   comprehensive  whole.     Am   I  not  true  to  the 


lOO  EpocJis  ill  CJmrch  History. 

Catholicity  of  our  religion,  if  I  see  in  these  the  Provi- 
dence of  God,  as  it  guides  the  divisions  of  men? 
Are  we  to  think,  as  we  look  on  the  real  fruits,  that 
Protestant  Christianity  is  a  chaos  or  a  failure  ?  The 
little  minnow  in  his  creek,  who  knows  nothing  of  the 
tides  of  the  sea,  may  as  well  think  when  a  wave  comes 
rolling  in  that  all  is  chaos,  as  that  these  little  critics 
of  our  Church  and  generation  should  draw  their  nar- 
row conclusions. 

But  there  is,  beyond  the  view  of  the  Church  itself,  a 
far  more  real  solution.  If  we  turn  from  the  discords 
on  the  surface,  and  ask  what,  after  all,  has  been  the 
fruit  of  this  Protestant  Christianity  on  the  real  civili- 
zation of  these  ages,  what  for  education,  for  a  noble 
philanthropy,  for  the  social  issues  of  a  time  that  cares 
less  for  Church  politics  than  for  the  kingdom  of  Christ, 
then  I  say,  in  spite  of  all  its  rival  sects,  it  is  here  I 
recognize  its  meaning.  This  is  Protestantism.  It 
may  be  a  trivial  view  to  one  who  sees  nothing  save  an 
ecclesiastical  machine  in  the  Church  of  God.  But  it  is 
not  so  to  me.  I  look  on  the  Church  as  a  divine  fab- 
ric, but  its  purpose  is  to  educate  the  heart  and  life  of 
mankind.  If  I  go  to  those  lands  where  the  Reforma- 
tion has  sown  its  seed,  if  I  compare  with  the  intelli- 
gence, the  private  morality,  the  social  virtue  of  these 
the  conditions  of  the  olden  time,  I  need  no  better  wit- 
ness. Here,  amidst  all  the  strifes  of  doctrine,  or  the 
divisions  of  sect,  I  know  the  real  power  of  a  religion 


The  Reformation.  loi 

which  has  renewed  the  conscience.  I  know  that  I 
shall  be  told  of  the  loose  growth  of  unbelief.  But  I 
cannot  on  this  account  blind  my  eyes  to  the  reality. 
It  was  the  worst  feature  of  the  so-called  ages  of  faith, 
that  they  obscured  the  moral  sense  of  the  world  ;  there 
could  be  no  awakening  of  the  intelligent  belief  of 
the  self-governed  will.  It  is  so  to-day.  And  It  is 
the  noblest  gift  of  the  Protestant  Reformation  to 
mankind,  that  it  planted  religion  in  the  conscience, 
and  that  out  of  it  has  grown  the  harvest  of  its  civ- 
ilization. 

And  thus  I  reach  the  closing  thought.  I  rejoice  to 
believe  that  in  such  a  view  of  past  and  present  we  can 
see  the  true  promise  of  the  future.  The  Church 
passed  through  Its  age  of  hierarchy :  It  must  pass 
through  that  of  doctrinal  discord.  Its  result  is  not 
loss  of  order  in  one  case,  or  truth  in  the  other.  It  is 
re-conciliation.  We  are  not  to  expect  unity  till  then. 
If,  in  spite  of  error,  or  unbelief,  the  good  is  unanswer- 
ably beyond  the  evil ;  if  the  life  of  the  Protestant 
Reformation  has  thus  been  bound  up  with  all  the 
fruits  of  science,  letters,  social  growth,  surely  we  need  not 
doubt  the  end.  Very  far  am  I  from  the  Idea  that  the 
Church  of  Christ  is  to  remain  this  heap  of  discordant 
sects,  or  that  it  can  reach  its  true  condition  by  any 
superficial  union  of  men  or  systems  really  at  discord. 
I  rejoice  indeed  In  every  such  sign  of  union  as  an 
Evangelical  Alliance,  not  because  its  doctrinal  basis  is 


102  Epochs  in  C/mrch  History. 

perfect,  but  because  it  can  and  does  bring  Christian 
men  nearer  in  heart ;  and  as  they  feel  the  unity  of 
spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace,  they  will  see  the  narrow- 
ness of  their  systems,  and  learn  at  last  to  stand  to- 
gether on  the  simple  ground  of  an  Apostles'  creed,  to 
put  away  their  metaphysics  and  prize  their  essential 
belief;  to  unlearn  the  strifes  of  the  past,  and  feel  the 
value  of  a  historic  unity.  That  unity  can  only  come 
when  the  Calvinist  shall  give  up  his  Westminster  Con- 
fession as  the  basis  of  communion,  the  Baptist  his 
notion  of  a  perfect  church  of  adult  converts,  the 
Methodist  his  exclusive  theory  of  a  sudden  conver- 
sion ;  and  each  and  all  be  glad  to  be  one  in  a  truth 
larger  than  sectarian  opinion.  And  we,  too,  have  the 
same  sect  spirit  to  slough  off;  we,  too,  are  to  know 
that  we  are  part,  and  only  part,  of  the  Church  of  God. 
And  therefore  it  is  idle  to  expect  such  a  conclusion 
soon.  No  unripe  enthusiasm  will  bring  it.  Only 
a  careful  study  of  the  Word  of  God  and  a  devout 
learning  of  history  will  bring  it.  But  if  we  believe  in 
these,  if  we  believe  in  the  whole  truth  which  God 
writes  in  this  long  history,  we  shall  gladly  hail  the  true 
signs  that  such  a  day  is  dawning,  and  that  the  con- 
fused shadows  of  the  morning  twilight  are  melting  into 
clear  lines.  Much  has  been  gained  already.  Many 
in  all  these  long-severed  communions  are  longing  for 
the  better  unity.  If  we  have,  as  I  truly  hold,  grand 
elements  of  historic  truth  and  order  to  offer;  if  we  are 


TJie  Reformation,  103 

living  and  large  witnesses  to  that  Church  Catholic 
which  lies  beyond  our  special  system,  we  shall  help  on 
that  unity.  If,  with  our  theories  of  a  Conciliar  age, 
and  an  exclusive  Episcopate,  we  prefer  to  dream  of 
union  with  a  Latin  communion  and  a  Greek  Church, 
which  has  been  frozen  for  ages,  and  to  exclude  this 
vast  body  of  a  Protestant  Christendom  with  all  its  tides 
of  intellectual  and  social  and  spiritual  life  ;  if  there  be 
the  man  who  stands  aloof  in  his  cold  indifference  to 
this  whole  age  of  thought  and  earnest  striving,  I  have 
no  part  and  lot  in  his  Churchmanship.  I  believe  indeed 
in  no  sectarian  unity.  I  believe  that  the  age  to  be  shall 
embrace  the  noblest  minds  and  hearts  of  all  these  sev- 
ered communions,  Roman,  or  Greek,  or  Protestant. 
But  it  must  come  in  the  living  way.  Still,  my  noblest 
faith,  my  clearest  hope,  my  most  earnest  labors  are 
with  the  great  body  which  bears  with  it  the  gathered 
life  of  history ;  with  the  principles  of  that  Reforma- 
tion which  went  forward  and  not  backward,  with  that 
belief  in  a  living  Christ,  that  study  of  His  open  Word, 
that  freedom  of  conscience,  which  are  the  birthright  of 
the  ages.  There  stands  in  the  market-place  of  quaint 
Wittenberg,  the  church  at  whose  door  Luther  nailed 
his  Theses,  and  where  you  almost  look  to  see  his  stal- 
wart form  step  out  of  the  gateway,  a  solid  monument 
on  whose  base  are  graven  his  own  words : 

If  it  be  man's  work,  it  dies, 
If  it  be  God's  work,  it  lives. 


104  EpocJis  hi  CJmrcJi  History. 

The  Reformation  is  written  in  that  epitaph  unto  this 
day.  What  is  man's  work,  has  passed,  is  passing. 
What  is  God's  work,  shall  have  the  life  of  God  in  all 
human  history. 


THE    ENGLISH    CHURCH. 

It  is  not  easy  for  the  most  impartial  scholar  to  write 
an  essay  on  the  Church  to  which  he  owes  his  Chris- 
tian training  ;  and  still  more  when  the  task  before  him 
is  the  character  of  the  English  communion.  We  have 
not  yet  emerged  from  the  smoke  of  the  battle,  already 
nearing  a  half  century,  in  which  the  deepest  questions 
alike  of  theology  and  polity  have  divided  its  members  ; 
and  none  can  claim  to  be  wholly  free  from  the  one- 
sided view  of  the  history  of  his  own  time.  Yet  we 
ought,  I  think,  to  be  able,  at  least,  after  so  many 
years,  to  come  nearer  to  an  honest  understanding, 
and  to  weigh  the  principles  involved  in  the  strife  with 
a  clearer  insight  than  that  of  the  Puritan  or  the  narrow 
Churchman.  That  history  seems  to  me,  so  far  from 
being  a  mere  strife  of  parties,  that  it  is  rather  one  of 
the  most  fruitful  of  studies,  bearing  at  once  on  the  past 
and  the  future  of  Reformed  Christendom.  I  shall 
attempt  to  show  its  meaning.  I  cannot  hope  to  sat- 
isfy all  within  or  without  its  communion ;  but  as  I 
have  no  school  to  defend,  I  may  promise  fair  and  gen- 
erous argument.  If  I  may  speak  as  a  son,  who  honors 
the  ancestral  home  with  all  its  memories,  yet  never 
5"  105 


io6  Epochs  in  Church  History, 

forgets  that  he  is  the  member  of  the  Church  of  Christ, 
larger  than  the  English  and  all  communions  ;  if  I  may 
show  that  the  principle  of  its  structure  is  Catholic  in 
a  truer  sense  than  that  of  a  Latin  or  Anglican  theory, 
one  with  the  Catholic  life  of  history,  I  shall  fulfil  my 
earnest  wish. 

My  design  is  to  go  directly  to  the  sources  of  this 
history,  that  we  may  have  the  real  character  of  the 
formative  time,  when  the  faith  and  worship  of  the 
Reformed  Church  were  shaped.  It  is  only  the  thor- 
ough knowledge  of  the  facts  which  can  guide  us  in 
this  study  of  one  of  the  most  complex  growths.  In- 
deed the  cause  of  all  differences  on  this  subject  lies  in 
the  theories  which  have  been  put  in  the  stead  of  his- 
toric criticism.  The  Church  of  England  stands  among 
the  bodies  of  the  Protestant  Reformation,  like  those 
of  continental  grovv'th  in  certain  marked,  and  as  I 
hold,  essential  features,  yet  in  others  allied  with  the 
ancient  system  before  the  separation.  All,  whether 
Lutheran  or  Calvinist,  seem  to  have  a  homogeneous 
structure  in  theology  and  w^oi'ship.  This  has  retained, 
vv^ith  its  Protestant  faith,  its  Episcopate,  its  early  lit- 
urgy, and  with  it  many  of  the  archaic  elements  of  the 
Latin  age.  It  combines  them  in  one  building,  as  the 
Cathedral  of  Canterbury  has  its  Norman  chantry 
blended  with  the  lofty  Gothic  arches.  It  has  thus 
been  the  puzzle  of  theorists.  To  a  Protestant  it  ap- 
pears a  false,  even  dishonest  compromise.     To  a  Ro- 


TJie  English  Church.  107 

manlst,  from  Bossuet  to  Newman,  it  is  another  sect 
of  Protestantism,  or  a  state  creation  of  Henry  VIII. 
Within  its  own  communion  some  find  in  it  "  Roman- 
izing germs,"  and  even  say  that  there  are  two  rehg- 
ions  struggHng  Hke  Esau  and  Jacob  at  the  birth.  But 
the  favorite  theory  of  the  Anglican  is  still  that  of  the 
Via  Media,  the  starting  point  of  the  Oxford  revival 
(of  which  its  most  stalwart  champion,  Mr.  Newman, 
has  been  the  most  logical  refuter),  according  to  which 
it  represents  in  its  idea  a  Catholic  unity,  alike  apart 
from  the  sectarianism  of  Rome  or  Protestantism, 
based  on  the  unbroken  Episcopate  and  general  coun- 
cils. This,  then,  is  the  problem  before  us.  I  shall 
endeavor  to  show  you  that  none  of  these  theories 
solve  it.  I  shall  show  that  it  was  not  built  by  any 
such  preconceived  theory  at  all ;  that  it  was  a  natural 
historic  growth,  and  that  such  growth  at  once  ex- 
plains its  partial  defects,  its  discordant  struggles,  yet 
its  comprehensive  character,  and  the  work  it  has  to 
do  in  the  common  aim  of  Protestant  Christendom. 

Let  us  ask,  then,  at  the  outset,  what  were  the  causes 
of  the  Reformation  in  the  English  Church,  and  we  can 
then  trace  the  spiritual  character  of  its  development 
in  theology  and  polity.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that 
the  movement  was  one  with  the  general  convulsion 
which  shook  Europe.  It  was  no  insulated  Hecla, 
whose  volcanic  fires  were  felt  only  within  its  own  bor- 
ders, but  the  great  pulses  ran  underground,  and  burst 


io8  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

at  the  same  time  in  Germany,  France,  England.  The 
revolt  was  against  the  common  usurper.  All  the 
forces  of  the  new  civilization,  as  I  have  shown  in  my 
former  lecture,  the  religious  freedom,  the  national 
growth,  the  freshly  awakened  spirit  of  literature, 
entered  into  the  war.  The  Latin  claim  of  universal 
power  had  become  in  that^age  as  much  a  political  as 
a  religious  affront.  But  herein  was  the  marked  dif- 
ference between  the  outbreak  of  the  Reformation  in 
England  and  on  the  Continent,  that  while  in  the  latter 
it  began,  by  the  necessity  of  the  case,  as  a  revolt  against 
the  Church  authority,  under  a  few  great  leaders,  in 
the  former  it  was  a  national  movement.  To  under- 
stand that  weighty  fact  fully,  we  need  to  study  the 
earlier  history  of  religious  thought  in  the  island.  I 
can  only  here  give  the  main  features  of  it.  The  in- 
sular position  of  England  had,  after  the  consolidation 
of  the  Conquest,  given  it  a  greater  unity  of  develop- 
ment in  its  political  and  religious  life.  It  had  accepted 
the  supremacy  of  the  Roman  Church,  yet  it  is  the 
striking  fact  that  even  the  Conqueror  forbade  the 
intrusion  of  the  Papal  legate  on  his  own  right  of  eccle- 
siastical appointment.  That  jealousy  of  foreign  rule 
grew  into  a  spirit  of  determined  resistance,  after  the 
beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century,  when  the  election 
of  Bishops  had  been  claimed  by  the  Roman  Sec,  the 
clergy  placed  above  the  jurisdiction  of  the  courts,  and 
the  shameless  John  had  even  held  his  kingdom  in  fee. 


The  English  Church.  109 

Richard  II.  had  maintained  \\\q prcBinnnire.  Edward 
III.  had  refused  the  annates.  Although  in  the  long 
wars  of  the  Roses  the  Roman  Church  had  again  seized 
its  opportunity,  the  nation  was  growing  ready  for  its 
final  struggle.  In  this  light  we  can  rightly  understand 
that  work  of  John  Wyclif,  which  is  often  regarded  as  a 
shortlived  effort  of  one  man,  witli  little  influence  on 
the  after  history.  The  fact  is  just  the  reverse.  Wyclif 
was  indeed  far  in  advance  of  his  time  in  his  insight 
into  the  doctrinal  errors  of  the  Latin  Church.  It  was 
not  his  theological  attacks,  but  his  bold  exposure  of 
the  vices  of  the  clergy,  the  simony,  the  greed,  the  lust 
and  lawlessness,  especially  in  the  monastic  orders, 
•which  made  him  the  forerunner  of  the  Reformation. 
He  was,  in  the  truest  sense,  a  leader  in  the  social  ideas 
of  his  time.  No  stronger  proof  can  be  given  of  his  in- 
fluence, than  that  his  argument  against  the  right  of 
the  Papacy  to  levy  taxes  in  the  kingdom  led  to  the 
decision  of  king  and  council  in  1360.  He  was  not, 
like  John  of  Wesel  or  Tauler,  a  cloister  thinker,  but, 
like  Luth-er  himself,  an  outspoken,  active  leader.  His 
Schisina  Papce^  A.D.  1378,  is  an  arraignment  of  the  Pon- 
tiff as  an  invader  of  the  national  Church  and  State. 
It  was  this  teaching  that  sank  into  the  soil  to 
bear  later  fruit,  although  his  movement  was  seemingly 
crushed,  perhaps  because  there  were  some  communistic 
elements  in  Lollardism,  more  probably  because  the 
deeper  truth  was  not  yet  ripened  in  the  national  mind. 


no  EpocJis  in  CJntrch  History. 

The  translation  of  the  New  Testament  was  one  of 
the  germs  of  the  new  Engh'sh  Hterature.  We  have 
proof  enough  of  the  steady  growth  of  the  ideas 
planted  by  the  apostle  of  Lutterworth  in  the  fact  that, 
in  1485,  on  the  eve  of  the  Reformation,  it  was  said  by 
the  angry  ecclesiastics,  that  ''  half  the  kingdom  was 
Lollard."  And  if  we  seek  the  real  signs  of  the  time, 
we  shall  read  far  better  than  in  any  theological  trea- 
tises or  acts  of  Parliament  the  living  history  of  England 
in  the  literature,  from  the  satire  of  Walter  Mapes  to 
the  tales  of  Chaucer,  and  the  popular  songs,  where  we 
see  the  vices  of  the  Church  portrayed  in  their  full 
colors  for  the  scorn  of  the  nation. 

We  have  here,  then,  the  view  of  the  movement,  at, 
once  social  and  religious,  which  explains  the  final  issue 
in  the  reign  of  Henry  VI I L  Nothing  can  be  more  un- 
true to  history  than  the  charge  so  often  brought  by 
Romish  sophists  and  embittered  dissenters,  nay,  by 
even  grave  historians,  that  this  utter  change  of  a 
national  religion  was  caused  by  the  quarrel  of  this  king 
about  his  divorce.  It  is  as  absurd  as  to  find  the  secret 
of  the  German  Reformation  in  the  dislike  of  the  friar 
Luther  to  the  inteference  of  Tetzel  with  his  monkish 
order.  We  need  not  here  ask  whether  the  king  was 
right  or  wrong  in  the  matter  of  his  harem ;  nor  shall  I 
certainly  paint  him  as  the  ''  fine  old  English  gentle- 
man,'.' whom  Mr.  Froude  has  found  under  the  coarse 
daubings  of  history.    The  only  weighty  point  for  us  is 


The  Eno-lish  Church.  iii 


"^> 


that  he  was  the  occasion,  but  not  the  cause  of  the  cri- 
sis. We  are  more  indebted  to  Mr.  Froude,  that  he 
has  cast  such  fuller  light  from  the  historic  documents 
on  the  fact  that  the  English  Parliament  had,  before 
the  broken  marriage,  passed  its  great  act  of  national 
divorce,  by  which  the  allegiance  to  the  Roman  See 
was  annulled  forever.  It  should  be  plain,  indeed,  that 
the  Reformation  could  never  have  leaped  at  one  stride 
into  such  a  schism,  had  there  not  been  a  full  ripening 
in  the  national  conscience.  We  have  studied  its  steps. 
It  was  the  critical  act  of  the  long  history.  But  it  en- 
ables us  to  see,  moreover,  precisely  the  difference  in 
the  formation  of  the  English  Church  from  that  of  the 
continent.  In  Germany,  the  strength  of  the  empire 
was  on  the  side  of  the  Papacy,  and  only  a  few  lesser 
princes  could  protect  the  Reformers.  The  Bishops 
and  ecclesiastical  leaders  were  against  change.  It  was 
the  necessity  of  Luther,  Zwingli,  and  Calvin  to  organ- 
ize the  movement  alone.  But  in  England,  King,  Par- 
liament, and  people  were  united  ;  and  although  the 
larger  part  of  the  prelates  and  clergy  at  that  time 
were  unwilling  actors  in  any  open  reformation,  as  they 
usually  are,  they  were  forced  to  accept  the  fact.  I 
confess  to  a  far  greater  admiration  of  a  colossal  man, 
like  the  monk  of  Wittenberg,  alone  against  Leo  X. 
and  Charles  V.,  than  of  a  Cranmer,  who  played  the 
mingled  part  of  apostle  and  courtier.  And  we  should 
as  readily  admit  the  evils  of  the  Church  establishment, 


112  Epochs  in  Church  History, 

which,  although  in  theory  the  king  was  not  the  spirit- 
ual but  only  the  temporal  head,  made  him  really 
another  Pontiff,  and  the  prelates  satraps  of  this  royal 
despot.  But  of  this  I  shall  speak  more  at  length 
hereafter.  I  am  chiefly  concerned  here  wath  the  char- 
acter of  the  growth.  It  is  enough  to  say,  that  the  Ref- 
ormation could  have  taken  at  that  time  no  other 
shape.  It  was  a  national  act.  To  throw  off  the  su- 
premacy of  the  Latin  usurper  was  simply  to  return  to 
the  national  relations  of  State  and  Church  as  they 
were.  That  beginning  shaped  the  whole  after  growth. 
There  was  not,  as  in  Germany  or  Switzerland,  a  free 
development  of  religious  thought  and  life.  There  was 
not  such  an  alliance  of  the  Reformation  with  the 
growth  of  the  people.  The  English  Church  repre- 
sented the  Anglo-Norman  type  of  the  State  in  the 
character  of  its  prelates  and  its  policy  of  uniformity. 
I  am  persuaded,  indeed,  and  the  more  so  from  the 
later  studies  of  historians  like  Freeman  into  the  state 
of  England  after  the  conquest,  that  much  of  the  Puri- 
tan spirit,  which  was  lashed  into  just  anger  in  the  next 
age,  was  the  revival  of  the  old  Saxon  liberty,  now  lost 
under  Norman  aristocracy.  Its  hatred  to  the  estab- 
lishment grew  out  of  the  yoke  of  Norman  prelacy,  and 
allied  itself  at  last  with  the  political  strife  that  ended 
in  a  free  Parliament.  But  while  we  see  the  defects, 
we  are  bound  to  acknowledge  in  these  great  elements 
of  national  growth  what  shaped  the  historic  unity  and 


TJie  English  CJntrch.  1 1 3 

life  of  the  Church.  It  kept  it  conservative  of  all  in  the 
faith  and  order  of  the  past  which  was  truly  Catholic, 
while  at  the  same  time  no  Protestant  power  could 
wield  such  compact  strength,  at  once  political  and  re- 
ligious, against  the  Roman  usurpation.  Had  it  not  been 
for  this,  England  would  have  been  reconquered  in  the 
next  period  of  counter  Reformation,  when  the  Protes- 
tantism of  France  was  broken  in  spite  of  its  vast  growth, 
and  Germany  was  torn  in  pieces  as  much  from  the 
want  of  unity  in  the  Reformed  bodies  as  by  the  league 
of  Catholic  powers.  This  solidarity  of  the  nation  kept 
it  in  its  growth  less  liable  to  the  strifes  of  religious  party, 
which  could  not  be  escaped  in  this  early  time  of  intel- 
lectual and  moral  awakening,  yet  had  sundered  the 
Reformers  into  theological  fragments.  It  gave  time 
for  a  sure  ripening.  We  do  not  find  any  swift  or 
thorough  development  in  the  reign  of  Henry.  The 
"  Articles  devised  to  establish  Christian  quietness," 
and  the  *'  Institution  of  a  Christian  man,"  following  in 
1537,  show  that  the  dogmas  of  the  mass,  the  seven  sac- 
raments, intercessory  prayer  for  the  dead,  reverence 
of  Mary  and  the  saints,  and  purgatory  were  still  re- 
ceived. It  is  the  transition  period,  which  our  ritualistic 
revivalists  would  like  to  exhume  as  the  golden  age  of 
Anglican  faith.  But  the  next  reign  proves  that  the 
act  of  national  freedom  held  the  whole  result  in  solu- 
tion. Ultramontanism  meant  then,  as  now,  the  scho- 
lastic   and  priestly  system    blended   with   the  feudal 


114  Epochs  in   CImrch  History, 

headship  of  Rome.  It  needed  only  a  few  years  of 
national  progress  for  the  Reformation  to  come  forth  a 
ripe  fact  in  the  minds  of  Cranmer,  Ridley,  Latimer,  and 
the  host  of  scholars  who  represent  the  England  of  that 
time.  We  have,  in  the  publication  of  the  Liturgy  in 
its  first  form  in  1549,  the  draft  of  doctrine  and  wor- 
ship;  and  finally,  under  Elizabeth  in  1563,  the  Articles 
and  second  book  of  Homilies,  which  give  us  the  stand- 
ard of  the  Church  of  England. 

We  may  now,  with  this  clear  knowledge  of  the 
character  of  the  national  Reformation,  study  the  his- 
tory of  religious  thought  and  life  in  the  English 
Church  as  it  has  shaped  itself  in  theology  and  polity. 
It  is  in  the  Articles  of  Religion,  as  embodying  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Reformers,  we  are  to  find  our  standard  ; 
but  we  are  to  learn  their  harmony  with  the  principles 
of  the  Liturgy.  We  have  had  of  late  years  the  the- 
ory, broached  by  the  Oxford  school  of  Pusey,  and 
largely  received,  that  there  was  a  defined  system  of 
what  is  called  Anglo-Catholic  theology  to  be  found  in 
the  offices  of  the  Church,  preserving  the  Nicene  faith 
and  severing  it  from  the  doctrinal  system  of  conti- 
nental Protestants.  My  wish  is  to  show  the  true  his- 
toric unity  in  place  of  this  baseless  theory.  It  is  be- 
cause the  theology  of  a  later  school,  after  the  time  of 
the  Restoration,  has  been  mistaken  for  the  Consensus 
of  the  English  Church,  that  the  principles  of  the  Ref- 
ormation have  been  so  poorly  understood.     Happily, 


The  English  Church.  115 

within  these  few  years,  the  more  critical  study  of  the 
elder  Fathers  from  Jewel  and  Ridley  to  Hooker  has 
taught  us  the  sober  truth.  It  has  taught  us  the  essen- 
tial harmony  of  their  theology  with  the  Protestants 
of  the  Continent,  and  at  the  same  time  the  reason  of 
their  difference  in  certain  features.  If  we  turn,  first 
of  all,  to  the  cardinal  doctrines  of  the  Reformation, 
as  they  were  received  by  Luther  and  Calvin,  the  su- 
premacy and  sufficiency  of  the  truth  of  Scripture  as 
above  tradition,  the  personal  faith  in  Christ  instead 
of  the  operative  grace  of  sacraments,  we  find  as  strong 
a  definition  in  the  articles  as  in  any  of  the  confessions. 
But  not  only  is  there  this  general  agreement ;  it  is 
clear  that  the  likeness  Is  a  minute  one  In  many  feat- 
ures. The  articles  of  the  Trinity  and  Incarnation 
are  almost  the  same  with  the  Augsburg  and  Wurtem.- 
burg  Confessions.  The  statements  of  sin  and  grace, 
of  free  will,  are  like  the  Lutheran.  The  view  of  tradi- 
tion, of  works,  the  definition  of  the  Church,  of  the 
authority  of  councils,  of  the  nature  and  number  of  sac- 
raments is  common  with  Luther,  Zwingli,  and  Calvin, 
Yet  it  Is  clear,  again,  that  In  regard  to  the  doctrines, 
afterward  the  root  of  discord  in  Holland,  of  predesti- 
nation and  reprobation,  while  there  Is  a  substantial 
unity,  there  is  a  more  moderate  tone  than  In  the  Cal- 
vlnistic  Confessions.  We  have  here,  then,  the  plain 
key  to  the  resemblance.  All  the  Reformers,  alike  in 
England   or   abroad,  agreed   in   the   rejection   of  the 


Ii6  EpocJis  in  Church  History, 

scholastic  theology  of  the  Latin  Church,  as  it  had 
ripened  into  the  notions  of  the  infallible  authority  of 
tradition,  the  opus  operatum  of  the  sacraments,  and  the 
priestly  form.  All,  again,  went  back  to  the  earlier 
theology  of  Augustin,  and  received  his  teaching  as  the 
basis  of  their  system. 

But  we  are  now  to  compare  with  the  articles  the 
doctrinal  ideas  contained  in  the  liturgy.  It  is  the 
common  mistake  that  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regen- 
eration has  no  kindred  Avith  Protestant  theology,  and 
it  is  looked  on  alike  with  doubt  by  the  Evangelical 
and  with  delight  by  the  Anglo-Catholic.  Yet  a  study 
of  the  Continental  reformers  shows  us  that  it  was  the 
teaching  not  only  of  the  Lutheran,  but  the  Calvinist. 
We  find  it  in  Melancthon,  in  Bullinger,  precisely  as  in 
the  English  office.  The  explanation  is  simple.  All 
the  Reformers,  while  they  rejected  the  Latin  scholastic 
dogma  of  opus  operatum,  adopted  the  Christology  of 
Augustin.  This  theology  led  them  to  the  truth  of  a 
personal  faith  in  the  reception  of  the  sacrament,  but 
they  had  not  yet  any  doubt  of  the  metaphysical  real- 
ism on  which  Augustin  based  his  view  of  sacramental 
union.  Christ,  as  the  new  Adam,  was  united  in  soul 
and  body  with  believers  ;  and  as  faith  was  necessary 
to  spiritual  union,  the  sacraments  were  the  instrument 
of  union  with  His  body  the  Church.  Regeneration  was 
this  incorporation  with  Him  in  baptism.  But  the  same 
view  is  seen  still  further  in  the  Communion  Office.    It 


The  English  Church,  •  117 

is  In  entire  agreement  with  the  doctrine  of  Calvin.  It 
is  far  from  so  extreme  an  idea  of  sacramental  presence 
as  the  notion  of  Luther.  Yet  it  contains  expressions 
which  to  many  are  far  from  spiritual,  as  the  partaking 
of  the  body  of  the  Lord.  The  same  Christology  of  Au- 
gustin  was  their  source.  The  grace  was  not,  as  the  Re- 
formers held,  in  the  elements,  but  was  received  in  the 
act  of  faith  from  Christ  himself,  but  it  was  the  partak- 
ing in  sacramental  union  of  the  spirit  and  body  of  the 
Lord.  We  need  only  to  turn  to  the  writings  of  Calvin 
and  compare  them  with  Hooker  to  know  their  agree- 
ment. It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  the  Idea  of  any 
essential  difference  in  the  theology  of  the  English 
Prayer  Book  and  that  of  the  Reformers  has  no  ground 
whatever.  The  difference  lies  mainly  in  the  fact  that 
Ave  have  retained  in  these  offices  the  archaic  form  of 
expression  ;  and  thus  our  traditional  school  Is  able  to 
make  out  of  them  a  plausible  proof  of  Anglican  doc- 
trine, while  the  metaphysical  notion  mingled  with  the 
Christology  of  that  time  has  gone.  Protestant  theol- 
ogy has  outgrown  the  errors  of  Augustln.  Anglo- 
Catholic  theology  has  kept  them.  It  is  alike  absurd 
to  build  such  a  theory  on  the  prayer  book,  as  to  find 
fault  with  a  ^cw  archaic  forms.  If  the  phrase  *'  Ro- 
manizing germs  "  were  changed  to  ''  vestiges  of  school 
theology,"  It  will  give  us  the  very  truth.  If  we  will 
so  study  our  articles  and  liturgy  In  the  light  of  history 
we  shall  never  repeat  the  absurd  satire,  attributed  to 


Ii8  Epochs  in  C/mrch  History. 

Chatham,  that  the  "  English  Church  has  a  Popish  lit- 
urgy and  Calvinistic  articles." 

But  while  the  theology  of  the  Church  was  thus  clearly 
one  with  that  of  the  reformed  bodies,  it  is  undoubt- 
edly true  that  its  structure  as  a  national  body  gave  it 
a  different  tone.  Protestant  theology  tended  always 
toward  the  creation  of  separate  confessions,  and  its 
original  unity  was  shattered  by  this  unhappy  spirit. 
It  was  the  excellence  of  the  English  Church  that  it 
kept  before  it  this  unity  of  faith.  It  thus  placed 
the  Apostles'  Creed  foremost  as  the  simple  test 
of  Church  membership.  It  gave  the  Nicene  symbol 
its  high  rank  as  the  witness  to  the  foundation  truth 
of  believers.  There  was  not,  as  its  Articles  prove,  any 
design  to  accept  the  Nicene  age  or  its  councils  as  of 
supreme  authority.  Hooker  is  as  clear  on  that  point 
as  the  Articles.  But  there  was  a  design  to  draw  the 
line  between  the  universal,  plain  faith  of  Christian 
men  and  the  subtleties  of  scholastic  opinion.  That 
spirit  undoubtedly  led  to  the  more  moderate  tone  of 
the  Articles  which  I  have  noted  before.  It  is  a  rare 
criticism  of  Maurice  that  in  their  arrangement  the  great 
truths  of  the  Trinity  and  the  Incarnation  are  placed 
first,  while  the  dogma  of  decrees  begins  the  Confession 
of  Westminster.  Their  spirit  was  of  men  who  rebuilt 
the  Church,  and  did  not  form  a  school.  We  may  call 
the  Articles  a  "compromise"  if  we  will.  A  glass  of 
water  is  such  a  compromise  between  two  inflammable 


The  English  Church.  119 

gases.  The  biographer  of  Field  tells  us,  I  think,  the 
character  of  most  divines  oi  that  time,  that  "  on  points 
of  extreme  difficulty  he  did  not  think  fit  to  be  so  posi- 
tive in  defining  as  to  turn  matters  of  opinion  into  mat- 
ters of  faith."  We  have  in  them  at  once  a  thorough 
Protestantism,  yet  a  better  understanding  of  freedom 
and  comprehensiveness  of  thought  than  could  be  else- 
w^here  found  in  that  theological  age.  It  was  the  Church 
broad  enough  to  hold  Hooker  and  Whitgift  and  Tay- 
lor. And  there  are  two  omissions  in  the  Articles  which 
are  as  remarkable  as  some  of  their  definitions.  The  suf- 
ficiency of  Scripture  is  affirmed,  but  there  is  no  dogma 
of  verbal  or  plenary  inspiration.  In  this  the  English 
Church  has  kept  the  spiritual  faith  of  Luther  and  the 
first  age  instead  of  the  dogmatism  of  the  after  schools. 
There  is,  again,  no  doctrine  of  everlasting  punishment 
in  its  system,  but,  on  the  contrary,  it  was  distinctly 
omitted  in  the  revision.  I  will  not  dwell  on  these 
points,  but  only  mark  them  to  give  you  a  just  idea  of 
the  characteristics  of  these  Articles  of  religion  and 
those  who  compiled  them. 

As  regards  the  Liturgy,  the  Holy  Communion  office 
was  shaped  by  the  view  of  Calvin.  It  is,  in  its  ideas 
of  a  participation  of  spirit  and  body,  precisely  the 
same  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Continental  Reformer, 
based  on  the  Aristotelian  notions  of  spirit  and  matter, 
yet  freed  from  the  error  of  a  transubstantiation.  It 
lis  so  again  with  the  view  of  regeneration  in  the  Baptis- 


I20  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

mal  office.  Although  claimed  by  our  Anglo-Catholics 
as  not  Protestant,  and  decried  by  the  opposite  side  as 
having  ''  Romish  Germs,"  it  is  the  same  doctrine 
found  by  any  scholar  in  Melancthon  or  in  Bullinger. 
There  must  always  be  archaic  forms  in  such  a  liturgy, 
which  retain  ideas  of  scholastic  thought.  As  I  said 
before,  if  the  phrase  "Romanizing  Germs"  were 
changed  to  "vestiges  of  school  divinity,"  it  would  ex- 
press the  exact  truth.  We  are  to  read  these  expressions 
as  such,  and  if  we  do  we  shall  never  be  disturbed  lest 
the  Prayer  Book  be  unsound  ;  nor  shall  we  ever  fall 
into  the  Bibliolatry  which  opposes  a  wise  Revision. 

Thus,  again,  with  a  few  other  portions,  like  the 
"  Absolution  "  in  the  Office  for  the  Sick,  and  the  Atha- 
nasian  Creed.  We  have  most  wisely  omitted  them  ; 
the  one  as  easily  abused  to  error ;  the  other  as  the 
uncatholic  deposit  of  a  later  age,  and  a  piece  of  meta- 
physics unsuited  to  -worship,  as  well  as  unchristian  in 
its  style  of  curses.  But  we  are  to  judge  the  work 
of  the  Reformers  by  their  own  clear  principles.  If 
we  so  study  we  shall  never  mistake  their  Protes- 
tantism. 

The  Prayer  Book  was  one  work  of  men  who  sought 
to  purify  yet  keep  the  National  Church. 

One  point  remains,  that  of  the  Episcopate.  It  was  re- 
tained by  the  same  law,  as  primitive,  historic,  national. 
It  did  not  in  this  separate  itself  from  the  Reformation. 
Had  the  Continental  Reformation  taken  with  it  such 


The  English  Church.  121 

men  as  the  Old  Catholics,  it  would  doubtless  have  kept 
the  order.  But  there  was  not  one  leading  divine,  from 
Hooper  to  Hooker,  who  ever  claimed  more  than  his- 
toric and  primitive  usage  as  the  ground  of  Episcopal 
authority,  or  pretended  that  it  was  of  the  essence  of 
the  Church.  I  challenge  safely  the  proofs.  Whitgift, 
the  High  Churchman  of  Elizabeth's  time,  in  his  reply 
to  the  attack  of  Cartwright  against  the  prelacy,  as  not 
prescript  in  God's  Word,  distinctly  affirmed  that  "  to 
hold  it  of  necessity  that  we  have  the  same  kind  of 
government  as  in  the  Apostles'  time,  and  expressed 
in  Scripture,"  is  "  a  rotten  pillar."  It  was  the  Puritan 
of  that  day  who  held  this  view  and  was  the  narrow 
theorist.  It  is  the  Anglo-Catholic  of  our  own  time 
who  takes  Puritan  ground.  If  we  read,  as  so  many 
do,  the  words  of  the  Prayer-book,  as  maintaining  more 
than  the  assertion  of  the  historic  fact,  we  simply  deny 
the  whole  catena  of  early  English  divinity.  Nor  only 
so.  No  notion  of  an  exclusive  Episcopacy,  even  in 
later  times,  when  Bancroft  and  Laud  had  naturalized 
it,  gained  footing  as  a  Church  principle.  Field,  Bram- 
hall.  Hall,  Usher,  did  not  hold  it.  Morton,  although 
bitter  against  the  Presbyterians,  and  not  without 
reason,  declared  that  *' he  could  never  unchurch  the 
bodies  of  the  Continent  for  an  infelicity,  not  a  fault." 
All  the  poor  debate  as  to  whether  foreign  divines  held 
livings  in  the  English  Church  is  waste  paper.  There 
would  be  as  much  sense  in  claiming,  because  only  a 


122  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

naturalized  Englishman  could  hold  office,  that  England 
denied  the  validity  of  all  other  government.  The 
Bishop  remained,  as  the  King  remained,  part  of  the 
English  structure,  guarded  by  long  precedent,  and  by 
loyal  affection.  We  can  never  surrender  this  sober 
ground  for  any  notion  of  our  ecclesiastical  sophists. 
We  change  the  whole  foundation  of  the  Reformed 
Church  if  we  attempt  it.  And  it  is  as  untrue  to  history 
that  there  was  any  want  of  communion  with  Protes- 
tant Churches  of  the  Continent.  The  source  of  our 
common  mistake  is  in  confounding  the  quarrel  at  home 
with  dissenters,  which  had  both  State  and  Doctrinal 
elements  in  it,  with  the  position  of  England  toward 
the  Continent.  The  whole  record  down  to  the  day  of 
Charles,  shows  a  kindly  alliance  ;  a  close  conference 
with  Melancthon,  Bullinger,  Calvin,  in  regard  to  the 
common  welfare  of  Christendom,  in  questions  of  the- 
ology and  worship.  I  must  be  pardoned  if  I  dwell  too 
long  on  facts  which  no  scholar  ought  to  be  ignorant 
of ;  but  we  have  had  of  late  years  so  much  distorting 
theory  that  they  may  seem  novelties.  I  wouldconvince 
you  that,  in  claiming  this  broad  and  comprehensive 
ground,  I  am  only  planting  you  on  the  Church  of  the 
English  Fathers. 

Now  in  this  study  of  its  formative  age,  you  have 
the  explanation  of  the  marked  character  of  the  Eng- 
glish  Church,  and  its  whole  history  afterward.  It  was 
a  growth,  just  as  its  structure  of  government  has  been 


The  E^iglisli  Church.  123 

a  growth,  with  all  its  seeming  opposites  of  royal  pre- 
rogative and  popular  freedom ;  even  in  Tudor  and 
Stuart  reigns  keeping  the  germ  given  in  the  earliest 
Witan,  and  so  by  degrees  working  out  a  constitutional 
commonwealth.  That  government  is  always  a  puzzle 
to  all  doctrinaires.  The  French  republican  scorns  it 
as  far  below  his  model  of  '92,  yet  he  cannot  get  a  re- 
public which  grows  ;  and  so  the  doctrinaire  in  religious 
polity  cannot  explain  it.  The  Calvinist  or  the  Cath- 
olic finds  in  its  Articles  a  mass  of  contradictions,  a 
compromise  without  positive  principle.  And  then  the 
Anglican  attempts  to  construct  it  into  his  Via  Media. 
It  was  in  his  viev/  a  definite  system,  meant  to  exclude 
Romish  principles  on  one  side  and  Protestantism  on 
the  other;  to  combine  the  Catholic  features  of  the 
Church  in  one  symmetrical  whole  of  creed  and  council 
and  episcopate.  But  I  think  I  have  shown  you  that 
it  was  not  this  at  all.  It  is  simply  impossible  to  deny 
that  it  was  distinctly  Protestant,  that  it  had  in  it  the 
same  origin  and  the  same  ideas  as  all  Protestant  bo- 
dies, and  its  difference  was  in  certain  peculiarities  of 
structure.  But  it  is  in  this  very  character  that  I  claim 
its  real  Catholicity  lies.  It  has  through  this  national 
and  real  position  witnessed  to  those  common,  historic 
features  of  Christianity,  which,  although  never  lost, 
have  been  too  much  set  aside  through  the  theological 
disputes  of  Protestantism.  It  maintained  by  the 
Episcopate  a  regard   to   settled   law,  a  reverence  for 


124  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

the  ministry,  which  has  often  been  impaired  in  other 
forms  of  poHty.  It  fostered  a  sound,  practical  train- 
ing in  the  Church  in  its  whole  system  of  worship, 
while  elsewhere  a  subjective  piety,  a  religion  of  the 
emotions  or  of  notional  tendencies,  has  become  the 
gospel.  This  is  its  Catholicity.  Catholic  and  Protes- 
tant, I  have  said  before,  are  not  opposites.  Protestant 
and  Roman  are  opposites.  It  grew  out  of  its  charac- 
ter. It  is  the  fabric  of  a  national  Church,  in  which  as 
in  the  State  the  composition  of  these  many  elements 
has  given  a  mellow,  well-tempered  strength  ;  as  Nor- 
man and  Anglo-Saxon  and  Dane  have  made  a  people 
nobler  than  any  unmixed  race  ;  as  the  strong  speech 
of  Alfred  and  the  courtly  grace  of  France  made  the 
language  of  Shakespeare.  There  is  nothing  ideally 
perfect  in  such  a  church.  There  could  not  be  so  rich 
a  development  of  Christian  theology  as  with  the  Lu- 
theran mind.  The  Teuton  was  speculative,  like  the 
Greek,  the  Saxon  had  somewhat  of  the  Latin  prag- 
matic genius,  which  built  a  church,  not  a  metaphysi- 
cal system.  There  could  not  be  so  intense  or  free  an 
activity  as  with  the  Calvinist.  The  principle  of  the 
English  Church  was  what  Paley  touches  so  happily  in 
his  Political  Essays,  where  he  compares  the  State  to 
an  old  manor  house,  built  years  ago,  witli  all  styles  of 
architecture,  a  bit  of  Gothic  and  a  bit  of  Elizabethan, 
a  story  or  an  out-building  added  by  the  new  genera- 
tion ;  yet,  after  all,  roomy,  pleasant  by  its  very  irregu- 


The  EiiglisJi  CJitirch.  125 

larlties,  endeared  by  ancestral  ties,  and  much  better 
than  a  new  house. 

And  thus  we  may  now  understand  the  whole  process 
of  its  history.  Had  the  plan  of  its  Reformation 
(the  comprehensive  plan)  been  carried  out,  it  would 
have  been  the  meeting  point  of  Protestant  reform.  It 
was  not  the  principle  of  a  National  Church,  but  its  spirit 
of  comprehensive  freedom,  which  Avas  forgotten.  As 
it  was,  that  history  has  been  a  slow  groping  after  its 
original  purpose.  It  has  not  had  the  homogeneous 
character  of  Lutheranism  or  Calvinism  ;  but  often  con- 
tradictory elements,  often  reaction.  It  has  needed  all 
the  periods  since  to  ripen  the  germ.  But  it  has  never 
lost  the  original  type  ;  and  it  is  to-day,  after  the  years 
of  its  last  reaction,  surely  passing  toward  the  idea  of 
its  founders.  This  is  what  I  wish  now  briefly  to  show, 
and  in  that  view  we  may  read  its  history  with  fairness. 

In  that  first  age,  whose  culminating  point  is  with 
Richard  Hooker,  I  do  not  fear  to  say  we  have  its 
noblest  period.  Whatever  others  may  call  the  time  of 
the  Fathers,  it  is  here  we  find  the  nearest  approach  to 
a  comprehensive  Church.  It  was  the  age  that  created 
the  richest  growths  of  genius,  the  birth-time  of  Shake- 
speare, Bacon,  Spenser  ;  and  its  religion  was  born  of 
the  same  grand  causes.  There  is  a  freshness  and  vigor 
of  Protestant  life,  an  intensity  of  an  intellectual  as  well 
as  spiritual  struggle.  The  Ecclesiastical  Polity  of 
Hooker  is  the  first  grand  monument  of  English  prose 


126  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

writing.  But  it  is  more.  It  is  the  stateliest  building 
of  English  Christianity.  Nothing  can  more  fully  prove 
the  littleness  of  our  latest  ecclesiastical  school  than 
its  utter  misreading  of  the  great  jurist  ;  nothing  can 
be  more  apart  from  their  defects  than  he  who,  instead 
of  their  Nicene  tradition,  has  laid  down  the  principles 
of  law  inherent  in  the  structure  of  the  Christian  State. 
His  ideas  of  the  past  are  in  harmony  with  a  sound 
reason  ;  his  view  of  the  Church  broad  and  generous ; 
his  claim  for  the  Episcopate  based  on  historic  prece- 
dent, and  the  fullest  admission  of  the  whole  body,  as 
the  fountain  of  power  or  the  constitutional  system.  It 
was  the  spirit  of  the  Church  of  England.  He  was  the 
Broad  Churchman  of  that  day.  Oxford  divinity  has 
no  more  right  in  him  than  the  Puritan  of  his  time. 
But  we  now  perceive  the  growing  discords  pass  into 
open  strife  ;  and  surely  it  is  full  time  for  us  in  this 
calmer  period  to  weigh  fairly  the  right  and  wrong  of 
either  side.  The  doctrine  of  the  Church,  the  scheme 
of  a  comprehensive  worship,  was  indeed  far  larger  than 
the  theology  or  practical  spirit  of  the  Puritan.  We 
need  only  turn  to  the  remains  of  that  time  to  know  it. 
If  we  read  the  attacks  of  Cartwright  and  Travers,  we 
can  see  in  the  men  who  denounced  Episcopacy  as 
Anti-Christ,  and  counted  the  symbol  of  the  cross  idol- 
atry, a  far  narrower  mind  than  in  the  jurist  and  states- 
man. Hooker.  The  earliest  preacher  of  tolerance  in 
that  day  is  Taylor,  in  his  Liberty  of  Prophesying,     But 


The  English  Church.  127 

with  all  this,  the  Church  was  tyraanical  in  its  policy  of 
uniformity.  It  might  have  won  and  kept  the  more 
extreme  reformers,  and  have  saved  not  only  the  Church 
but  the  nation  from  civil  war.  In  the  day  of  Laud 
this  policy  reached  the  point  of  cruel  persecution.  I 
cannot  wonder  at  the  revolt,  when  the  cause  of  relig- 
ion and  submission  to  the  absolutism  of  the  Stuarts 
were  identified.  I  regard  it  as  the  saddest  evil  when 
at  the  Restoration  that  body  of  honest,  heroic  men, 
whatever  their  own  faults,  was  at  last  severed  from  the 
Church  of  England.  From  that  hour  the  Church 
ceased  to  be  truly  national,  and  dissent  became  a  full- 
grown  fact. 

We  have  from  this  hour  of  the  Restoration  a  chang^e 
in  the  character  of  the  English  Church.  Its  balance 
was  lost.  The  class  who  maintained  a  more  exclusive 
churchmanship  gained  far  greater  influence.  It  was 
mingled  with  that  hard  establishment  policy,  some- 
times a  high  toryism,  sometimes  a  selfish  State  con- 
servatism, which  opposed  all  just  liberty.  Yet  with  all 
our  dislike  of  those  ecclesiastical  features  we  are  never 
to  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  the  Church  of  England  was 
not  in  that  age  or  any  other  narrowed  into  one  party 
or  one  school.  It  is  a  striking  feature  that  from  the 
day  of  Laud  there  entered  into  the  theology  of  Eng- 
land the  large  leaven  of  Arminianism.  And  it  reveals 
the  singular  contradictions  which  are  to  be  found  in 
the  strifes  of  that   time.     We  are  often  told  that  Ar- 


128  EpocJis  in  Church  Histojy. 

minianism  is  more  akin  to  a  High  Church  theology,  be- 
cause it  teaches  that  divine  grace  may  be  conditioned 
by  works.  Yet,  as  in  the  case  of  Jansenism,  it  only 
shows  that  a  rigid  metaphysical  creed  may  drive  men 
to  its  opposite.  The  simple  truth  is  that  while  Laud 
and  his  followers  were  narrow  in  ecclesiastical  policy, 
the  Calvinist  was  equally  narrow  in  his  doctrinal  shib- 
boleths. The  English  Church  was  large  enough  to 
hold  both.  We  have  here  the  just  view  of  the  change. 
Arminianism  represented  the  dislike  of  an  iron  supra- 
lapsarianism,  and  the  milder  spirit  of  scholars  like 
Jeremy  Taylor.  And  so  we  know  how  fairly  to  meas- 
ure the  true  growth  of  that  period  in  spite  of  its  de- 
fects. We  are  justly  proud  of  the  names  of  Bramhall, 
Cosin,  and  many  more  whose  learning  and  piety 
adorned  the  Church  ;  but  when  our  Anglo-Catholics 
to-day  vaunt  them  as  THE  Fathers  of  the  Church,  we 
cannot  accept  it.  It  is  that  time  which  gives  us  Stil- 
lingfleet,  Chillingworth,  Usher,  and  many  like  scholars 
of  large  mind  and  most  generous  sympathies.  It  is 
then  we  see  the  befjinninc^s  of  that  Platonic  school 
which  boasts  such  names  as  Cudworth,  More,  Whlch- 
cote,  the  thinkers  of  the  Church.  The  original  breadth 
of  the  Reformation  had  not  passed  away.  No  school 
was  able  to  dwarf  it. 

But  we  pass  to  the  next  period,  which  runs  through 
the  Georges.  It  is  common  for  both  Evangelical  and 
later  High  Churchmen  to  upbraid  it  as  a  time  of  a  dull 


The  Eiio-lisJi  C/mrck, 


129 


State  religion  and  a  dead  spirituality.  Undoubtedly  it 
was  so.  But  we  are  to  remember  that  it  had  a  host  of 
the  noblest  scholars  and  good  men.  Burnet  is  the 
type  of  the  beginning  of  the  period.  It  is  common  to 
sneer  at  him.  His  book  on  the  Articles  is  better  than 
Brown.  It  is  broad,  moderate,  wholesomic.  Then 
follows  the  list  of  scholars  who  are  best  represented  by 
Tillotson.  It  was  the  time  of  the  long  battle  with 
English  deism.  There  was,  without  doubt,  a  less 
spiritual  thought  in  many  divines  from  Tillotson  to 
Paley.  But  the  Church  produced  Butler  and  others  of 
the  same  mould.  It  produced  a  theology  full  of  mas- 
culine thought  and  range.  And,  for  my  own  part, 
while  I  detest  his  ethics,  I  think  the  common  sense  of 
Paley  a  great  relief  from  the  devout  mysticism  of  mod- 
ern Oxford.  And  it  was,  thank  God,  that  age  of  Eng- 
land which  shaped  this  Church  in  America  ;  an  age  of 
neither  Evangelical  nor  Anglican  High  Churchman- 
ship,  butthat  of  good  sense,  rational  doctrine,  practical 
piety. 

Yet  there  were  influences  which  made  the  Church 
grow  secular.  The  balance,  I  repeat,  had  been  dis- 
turbed (not  the  piety  or  truth,  but  the  balance),  by  the 
loss  of  the  life  which  went  into  dissent,  and  which  left 
the  Church  to  its  excessive  conservatism.  It  needed 
reaction.  It  had  reached  at  last  the  time  when  it 
had  neglected    its    function  for    the    people,    and  the 

pulpit  was  the  place  where  the  elegant  rhetoric  of  a 
6- 


130  EpocJis  in  Church  History. 

Blair  or  a  cold  discourse  on  natural  theology  was  the 
fashion. 

And  now  came  the  movement  of  Wesley.  It  was 
in  its  beginning  "  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  of 
power."  It  entered  into  the  colliery,  the  farm,  the 
hovels  of  the  ignorant  and  wretched  ;  and  thousands 
were  awakened  to  new  life  as  they  listened  to  the 
voice  of  God  in  the  street  and  on  the  moor.  It  is 
false  to  say  that  the  movement  was  driven  out  from 
the  English  Church.  There  was  coldness  ;  but  Wesley 
was  welcomed  to  many  pulpits.  It  was  his  own  ex- 
travagance that  to  a  great  degree  checked  his  influ- 
ence. I  point  you  to  the  history.  But  it  is  true  that 
the  English  Church  was  neither  as  wise  nor  as  kindly  as 
it  should  have  been.  Yet  the  influence  was  by  no 
means  lost.  A  few  years  more  and  another  wave  of 
religious  life  broke  over  the  dry  soil  in  the  Evangelical 
movement  of  W^ilberforce  and  Venn  and  Simeon. 
There  was  deep  piety  and  earnest  zeal  in  it.  It 
touched  the  national  heart  ;  it  changed  the  tone  of  the 
whole  time.  Yet  it  had  not  in  it  the  elements  of  a  large 
Church  life.  There  was  not  in  its  leaders  the  learning 
to  meet  the  mind  of  England  ;  it  did  little  to  meet  the 
keen  unbelief  of  its  time  ;  it  tended  to  a  religion  of 
the  emotions  ;  it  had  no  true  appreciation  of  Church 
history  or  profound  theology.  But  it  has  not  died.  It 
will  not  die.  What  is  in  it  of  life  is  passing  out  of  its 
party  shape  to  mingle  with  all  that  is  free  and  living 


The  English  Church.  131 

in  the  body.  We  reach  here  the  history  of  our  own 
times.  It  is  half  a  century  since  the  movement  be- 
gan which  has  ever  since  agitated  that  communion.  I 
can  only  glance  at  the  causes  and  the  significance  of 
the  Catholic  revival,  as  it  is  called  by  its  devotees  ; 
and  I  Avould  do  it  fairly.  We  make  a  dull  mistake 
when  we  think  it  a  dream  of  a  few  cloistered  men  at 
Oxford  ;  it  came  out  of  the  whole  intellectual  and 
social  strife  of  the  time  ;  it  is  only  one  wave  of  that 
reactionary  current  which  to-day  agitates  European 
Christendom.  I  shall  never  deny  the  learning  or  the 
piety  in  which  it  arose.  If  you  will  read  its  autobiog- 
raphy take  up  the  Apologia  pro  Vita  Sua  of  Newman, 
the  very  secret  of  its  sincere  aims  and  its  marvellous 
defects.  It  was  at  the  time  when  England  began  to 
feel  the  questions  stirring  the  mind  of  our  time  which 
touch  the  authority  of  Scripture,  and  the  doctrines  and 
uasges  of  the  past ;  when  science  already  seemed  hos- 
tile to  Christianity.  Its  leaders  felt  the  deadness  of 
the  Establishment,  the  growing  strength  of  a  liberal- 
ism without  religion.  In  the  beginning  they  only 
aimed  to  revive  the  English  Church  in  its  unity  of 
creed  and  order  and  life.  Nor  can  we  wonder  that 
such  a  movement  did  awaken  a  deep  sympathy  on 
every  side  when  it  created  sacred  poets  like  Keble, 
and  devout  scholars  like  Newman  ;  when  it  recreated 
Christian  art,  infused  a  reverent  devotion  into  wor- 
ship, and,  yet  more,  did  noble  work  among  the  poor. 


132  Epochs  ill  Church  History. 

More  than  this ;  I  allow  the  Anglo-Catholic  principle, 
the  Catholic  consensus  of  the  Church.  Its  error  lay 
in  identifying  that  with  the  tradition  of  the  past,  in- 
stead of  passing  through  the  whole  history  of  the 
Church.  Its  leaders  were  doctrinaires^  bookish  think- 
ers, who  set  up  an  ideal  of  the  Church.  They  feared 
the  life  of  the  time.  They  saw  no  hope  save  in  the 
past.  They  had  no  faith  in  the  Protestantism  of  their 
own  time.  They  looked  backward  to  a  Nicene  period 
as  the  Catholic  kingdom  of  Christ.  It  was  thus  that 
their  theory  led  them  back  inevitably  to  an  infallible 
Church,  a  sacramental  system,  a  priesthood.  Men  saw 
the  inconsistency  but  blindly.  The  voice  was  the 
voice  of  Jacob,  the  hands  were  the  hands  of  Esau. 
The  great  leaders  were,  by  the  logic  of  their  own  posi- 
tion, swept  into  the  Church  of  Rome.  Yet  the  whole 
movement  did  not  die.  It  was  the  logical  result  of 
a  High  Church  theory.  It  could  not  pass,  until  the 
principles  on  which  it  was  based  should  be  thoroughly 
sifted.  And  hence  there  followed  that  Ritualistic  con- 
test which  to-day  divides  us.  Its  singular  power  lies 
in  its  popular  character.  The  Oxford  leaders  were 
scholastic.  This  is  more  suited  to  the  English  mind. 
Its  argument  is  in  free  chapel,  and  labor  among  the 
poor.  But  its  error  is  at  the  root.  That  contest  must 
not  be  mistaken.  It  is  no  question  of  chasubles  and 
incense ;  it  is  the  question  whether  the  Church  of 
England  shall  be  true  to  the  principles  of  the  Refor- 


The  English  Church.  133 

mation,  or  shall  set  up  as  the  distinct  idea  of  the 
Church  the  exclusive  idea  of  an  Episcopacy,  a  priestly 
authority,  a  Church  tradition  that  binds  the  con- 
science instead  of  the  open  Word  of  God.  This  is 
the  issue.  We  are  beginning  to  see  it.  We  are  be- 
ginning to  see  that  this  mongrel  dialect,  half  English 
and  half  Italian,  belongs  only  to  men  who  live  on  the 
frontier,  and  have  so  learned  to  talk  poorly  in  two 
languages.  In  that  view  I  hold  and  have  ever  held 
that  the  Ritualistic  contest  was  a  necessary  evil.  I 
believe  Ave  shall  learn  from  it  the  real  baselessness  of 
the  theory  which  underlies  it.  The  Anglo-Catholic 
reaction  is  teaching  us  a  sounder  learning.  It  has 
thriven  by  its  hold  on  the  traditional  faith  and  rever- 
ence of  men.  It  is  like  that  well-preserved  corpse, 
which,  when  the  sarcophagus  was  opened,  appeared 
perfect  in  feature,  but  at  the  first  exposure  fell  to 
dust.  Let  in  the  air  of  better  learning.  This  will 
bring  the  true  result. 

And  I  believe  that  hour  is  nigh  at  hand.  I  know 
there  are  many  who  look  with  sad  distrust  on  our 
time.  Old  lines  of  division  are  gone,  old,  respectable 
wars  of  high  and  low  are  over,  and  every  shade  of 
opinion  is  on  the  surface  ;  Catholic  and  semi-Catho- 
lic ;  broad,  and  high-broad  and  broad  evangelical. 
Men  say,  "  We  know  not  our  tokens,  there  is  not  one 
that  understandeth  any  more."  It  is  sad  indeed  for 
those  unhappy  Churchmen  who  have  been  wont  to 


134  EpocJis  in  Church  History. 

have  all  their  thinking  done  for  them  by  one  infalli- 
ble Pontiff  in  a  pulpit  or  newspaper.  But  there  are 
consolations.  I  noticed  on  Lake  Champlain  that  at 
close  of  winter  there  was  a  noise  like  artillery  at  night, 
and  in  the  morning  a  rude  fissure  in  the  surface,  and 
so  it  grew,  till  the  ice  was  a  network,  and  then  next 
morning  I  saw  the  blue  water  and  the  ice  packed  in 
the  corners.  That  is  the  moral  of  this  breaking.  Men 
mistake  the  ice  for  an  unchanging  floor,  or  the  fissures 
for  no  more  than  surface  cracks.  The  mind  and  heart 
of  the  English  Church  are  sound.  It  has  Protestant 
common  sense.  And  it  has  a  deep  religious  strength. 
We  must  expect  some  derangement  after  thirty  years 
of  Tractarian  quarrel.  It  was  not  strange  that  the 
"■  Essays  and  Reviews  "  should  startle  sober  England; 
yet  after  all  it  was  only  the  tonic  of  a  Russian  cold 
plunge  after  the  somewhat  enfeebled  state  of  the  in- 
tellectual muscles  from  the  hot  bath  of  Oxford.  Look 
under  the  surface.  There  has  never  been  a  time 
when  a  richer  intellectual  or  spiritual  activity  has  ap- 
peared. Out  of  this  strife  there  has  come  a  more 
thorough  criticism  of  Scripture,  and  of  Church  history. 
Our  English  scholars  are  exploring  anew  the  Fathers, 
and  correcting  the  one-sided  notions  of  Pusey  and  Wil- 
berforce,  testing  the  difference  of  the  worship  of  a  Ni- 
cene  age  and  sober,  historic  order,  and  the  end  will  be 
an  escape  from  the  "■  rival  follies."  I  point  to  its  schol- 
ars in    every  field :    Lightfoot,  Westcott,  the    noble 


The  English  Chtirch.  135 

Arnold,  Stanley,  Maurice,  Elllcott,  Howson  ;  its  liv- 
ing preachers;  Robertson,  Liddon,  the  Bishop  of  Pe- 
terboro'.  I  name  them  without  distinction  of  school. 
England  can  hold  them  all.  We  shall  gain  all  the 
blessings  in  disguise  from  the  past  reaction ;  its  gen- 
uine love  of  church;  its  reverence;  its  appreciation  of 
art ;  its  learning,  and  with  it  a  deeper  appreciation  of 
our  position  as  members  of  the  whole  Church  of  God ; 
a  more  ardent  attachment  to  the  living  truth  of  the 
Reformation. 

In  that  view  I  sum  up  this  chapter  of  history.  On 
this  ground  I  place  this  English  communion.  It  is 
not  its  existence  as  an  establishment,  it  is  not  its  ex- 
clusive claims  or  policy  that  make  its  history  great. 
It  is  in  spite  of  these  that  I  can  see  and  feel  wdiat  has 
given  it  a  lasting  glory  in  the  past,  and  is  to  make  it 
yet  a  leader  in  the  van  of  Christendom.  Rome  has 
produced  great  scholastics,  glowing  preachers,  men  of 
high  ascetic  devotion.  Lutheranism  has  its  profound 
learning ;  Calvinism  its  polemic  divines,  its  iron  cham- 
pions. The  Church  of  England  has  alone  had  such 
varied  minds  as  a  Hooker  and  a  Leighton,  a  Cud- 
worth  and  a  Butler,  a  Tillotson  and  a  Liddon,  an  Ar- 
nold, a  Coleridge,  and  a  Robertson.  There  are  none 
more  eminent  in  the  whole  range  of  practical  divinity. 
There  are  none  so  admirable  as  reasonable  defenders 
of  the  faith.  In  this  above  them  all  I  find  a  compre- 
hensive  wisdom ;    a   Christian   literature    rich    in   the 


136  EpocJis  in  Church  History. 

whole  range  of  ethics  and  devotion ;  a  piety  which 
blends  true  feeling  with  the  graces  of  the  household  ; 
and  the  virtues  of  a  national  life.  And  such  has  been 
its  influence  to  shape  the  soberest  and  most  symmet- 
rical Christian  character.  Noble  Church !  We  love 
it  as  our  mother.  We  prize  its  fair  worship,  its  set- 
tled order,  its  wise  training ;  we  prize  all  the  memo- 
ries of  its  past,  and  keep  them  as  our  undying  heri- 
tage. Never  shall  I  believe  that  a  Church  which  has 
begotten  a  Latimer  and  a  Ridley,  a  champion  of 
sound  faith  like  Chillingworth,  thinkers  like  Butler 
and  More,  saints  like  Herbert  and  Heber,  is  to  be 
untrue  to  its  great  destinies. 

That  is  my  closing  thought.  I  hold  that  such  a 
Church  has  a  work  to  do  beyond  itself.  This  I  believe 
to  be  the  result  of  all  its  life  and  all  its  experience,  to 
teach  it  its  true  Catholicity.  It  has  been  and  is  a 
growth  toward  the  fulfilment  of  the  principle  which 
lies  in  its  structure.  That  end  has  been  thwarted  by 
its  own  defects ;  it  is  to  be  nobly  Avon.  It  has  yet 
struggles  before  it.  I  do  not  seek  to  predict  what  may 
be  the  outcome  of  Its  State  establishment.  If  it  shall 
die  at  last,  I  am  glad  to  believe  it  will  only  be  when  it 
is  ready  for  the  result.  It  has  to-day  learned  its  true 
hold  on  tlie  nation,  the  hold  of  a  real  activity  and  gen- 
crotis  life.  For  this  alone  I  Avould  keep  it.  I  can  see 
that  its  worst  enemy  is  the  ecclesiastical  party,  which 
hates  the  State,  as  it  once  loved  it,  because  it  will  not 


The  English  C J  lurch.  137 

foster  Its  own  designs.  But  whatever  the  future  in 
this  regard,  I  have  no  fears  for  the  end.  I  believe 
with  all  the  fulness  of  a  conviction,  which  no  quarrels 
of  the  hour  can  shake,  in  the  work  God  has  given  such 
a  Church  to  do  in  this  age.  Never  since  the  Refor- 
mation has  there  been  a  time  when  all  the  divided 
bodies  of  the  continent  were  more  yearning  after 
union.  It  is  no  arrogant  pretension  that  can  bring  it. 
It  is  no  unity  which  would  absorb  them  into  an  An- 
glican body,  with  its  prelates  and  prayer-book.  It  is 
no  dream  of  a  universal  Episcopate.  Let  us  anchor 
ourselves  to  some  ecclesiastical  theory,  let  us  turn 
away  from  that  Protestant  Christianity  which  needs 
to-day  more  than  ever  a  united  front,  and  the  Church 
of  England  \\\\\  not  only  lose,  as  too  often  before,  its 
best  opportunity,  but  it  must  drift  at  last  into  the 
Dead  Sea  of  a  barren  isolation.  But  let  it  be  true  to 
its  own  original  design  ;  let  it  be  the  Church  that 
unites  at  once  its  love  of  the  Christian  past  with  the 
life  of  the  present ;  that  shall  teach  at  once  historic 
order,  yet  the  same  Protestant  freedom  that  nerved  its 
elder  heroes  and  martyrs,  and  it  shall  yet  be  the  leader 
of  a  broken  Christendom  into  unity. 


THE   CHURCH    OF  AMERICA. 

What  is  to  be  the  religious  character  of  America  ?  It 
is  the  question  which  Hfts  itself  on  the  horizon  to- 
day, above  even  the  grave  social  and  political  issues 
that  weigh  on  the  statesman.  For  it  is  indeed  one 
problem ;  that  of  our  Christian  civilization.  We 
share  the  hopes  and  fears  of  all  who  believe  in  the 
principles  of  our  great  Commonwealth.  A  century  has 
just  passed  over  our  history  ;  and  within  that  space  of 
time  has  grown  this  marvellous  life  of  a  continent,  nor 
can  we,  while  we  indulge  in  none  of  the  vain-glorious 
dreams  of  our  destiny,  doubt  that  the  God  who 
opened  this  new  world  to  us,  designs  to  make  it  the 
field  of  a  great  future.  Yet  a  century  is  but  the  long 
life  of  a  man,  and  the  infancy  of  a  nation.  It  is  not 
the  Genesis  of  this  Republic,  but  its  Exodus,  which 
should  concern  us.  It  is  folly  for  us  to  forget  that 
our  lasting  life  must  depend  on  the  education  of  the 
national  character  ;  the  formation  of  those  laws  of  self- 
governed  intelligence,  of  Christian  faith  and  virtuous 
habits,  which  more  than  in  all  other  forms  of  social 
policy  are  needed  for  a  republican  people. 

In  this  light  it  is  that  the  Christian  character  of  our 

133 


The  Church  of  America.  139 

American  civilization  meets  us.  In  this  light  I  wish  to 
dwell  on  it.  For  it  takes  indeed  colossal  proportions, 
as  we  consider  what  are  the  elements  entering  to-day 
into  the  subject.  There  has  never  been,  since  the  day 
when  barbarous  Europe  was  won  by  the  Christian 
Church,  any  parallel.  It  is,  as  then,  the  problem  of  a 
new  formation,  the  fusion  of  all  races,  and  languages  ; 
the  intelligence  and  the  refuse  of  Europe  ;  Protestant 
and  Roman  Catholic,  all  to  be  shaped  into  a  national 
growth.  Yet  it  is  as  plain  that,  with  this  likeness, 
there  is  an  entire  difference  in  the  conditions  of  the 
growth.  The  savage  hordes  of  the  olden  world  were 
won  in  a  time  when  the  Latin  Church  was  the  possess- 
or of  letters  and  religious  life ;  and  thus  the  religion 
of  Europe  took  first  a  feudal,  then  a  national  form. 
Our  emigrants  of  every  sort  bring  the  ideas  of  their 
old-world  civilization  Into  a  new,  where  no  hierarchy 
can  shape  them,  no  National  Church  educate  them. 
With  this  greater  freedom  of  development,  the  result 
must  depend  on  more  varied  influences,  alike  good 
and  evil. 

Such  is  the  problem.  I  do  not  look  on  it  with  fear, 
as  many  do.  I  cannot  share,  either  In  a  political  or 
religious  view,  that  unbelief  in  human  progress  under 
God's  guidance,  which  leads  us  to  look  back  to  Euro- 
pean forms  of  government  In  State  or  Church  as  the 
remedy  for  our  dangers.  We  may  be  far  from  the 
promised  land,  but   it   Is  not   wisdom   or  courage  to 


140  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

groan  for  the  flesh-pots  of  Egypt.  Indeed  I  should  be 
faithless  to  every  lesson  of  history,  did  I  not  hold  that 
God  in  His  Providence  is  shaping  here  a  new  and 
larger  formation  of  Christianity  than  from  any  of  the 
former  moulds.  Nor  can  I  have  the  feeling  of  those 
in  our  communion  who  are  looking  forward  to  a  time 
when  this  or  any  other  shall  become  THE  American 
Church.  Rather  I  hold  that  it  should  be  our  duty,  as 
Christian  observers,  to  study  the  real  forces  that  must 
enter  into  such  a  growth ;  and  so  understand  in  a  large 
and  comprehensive  spirit  our  work  for  the  general 
welfare.  In  no  sectarian  spirit,  therefore,  but  with 
the  freest  expression  as  to  our  aims,  our  duties  and  our 
dangers,  I  wish  to  consider  this  subject.  I  would  do 
full  justice  to  all  Christian  men,  of  every  name,  labor- 
ing in  the  same  great  field.  Yet  because  I  am  address- 
ing members  of  my  own  communion,  I  shall  especially 
direct  my  view  to  our  own  history.  We  are,  from 
causes  that  I  shall  fully  set  forth,  in  a  state  where  it 
will  depend  on  ourselves  whether  we  sink  back  to 
a  narrow  Church  deposit,  or  whether  we  undertake 
aright  the  task  God  has  given  us  in  our  land  and  time. 
I  shall,  then,  speak  j'^rj^  of  the  religious  influences 
which  have  shaped  America  thus  far,  and  of  our  own 
Church  in  connection  with  them.  It  is  a  strange, 
mingled  history.  Who  of  those  sturdy  Protestants,  of 
the  Protestants  that  came  here  to  found  their  king- 
dom of  God,  could  ever  have  dreamed  that  a  Roman 


The  Church  in  America,  141 

Church  would  in  a  century  have  become  a  political 
and  religious  power,  a  fowl  of  the  air  lodging  under  the 
shadow  of  this  great  tree  of  republican  liberty?  The 
early  religion  began  with  the  colonial  variety  of  Prot- 
estantism, and  with  a  few  Romanists,  Avhose  influence 
was  very  slight  before  the  late  day  of  Irish  emigration. 
The  Puritan  of  New  England  and  the  Presbyterian  of 
the  Middle  and  Southern  States  were  its  strongest 
elements.  Other  less  powerful  sects  had  their  home 
among  us.  In  Pennsylvania,  especially,  the  Moravian 
had  established  his  primitive  community,  and  the  fol- 
lower of  Fox,  the  teacher  of  the  Gospel  of  love  and 
peace,  had  founded  his  city  of  brotherly  love.  Our 
own  Church  had  flourished  in  Virginia  and  the  Caroli- 
nas;  but,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  cities  like  New 
York,  it  was  comparatively  an  exotic,  without  much 
religious  power  in  a  land  whose  colonists  remembered 
too  well  the  tyranny  of  England.  The  most  influen- 
tial body,  therefore,  both  Independent  and  Presbyte- 
rian, was  of  Calvlnist  type.  It  had  with  it  the  heroic 
elements  of  a  Protestantism  nursed  in  the  long  battles 
of  the  past.  It  had,  too,  that  love  of  learning  which 
ennobled  those  thinking  men,  and  early  showed  itself 
in  the  foundation  of  college  and  school.  I  render 
gratefully,  as  a  son  of  New  England,  this  high  rank  to 
the  religion  which,  beyond  all  other  forces,  shaped  the 
mental  and  moral  character  of  a  self-governed  repub- 
lic ;  and  I  believe,  in  spite  of  all  defects,  it  was  the 


142  Epochs  ill  Church  History. 

pioneer  of  Providence  in  our  early  history.  But  it 
had,  also,  the  inherent  characteristics  of  that  stern 
theology.  The  Puritan  sought  to  build  another  the- 
ocracy, in  later  types,  on  this  new  soil.  Church  and 
State  with  him  were  one  ;  but  it  was  no  State-Church, 
it  was  a  Church-State,  which  he  borrowed  from  the 
Old  Testament.  Tolerance  was  no  virtue  of  that 
time.  The  Baptist  was  its  only  teacher  among  the 
offshoots  of  Calvinism  ;  and  to  him  we  ought  to  give 
all  honor  for  the  example  of  Roger  Williams. 

Such  were  the  beginnings  of  religion  in  America. 
It  is  toward  the  close  of  our  colonial  age  we  see  the 
rise  of  the  body,  planted  by  Wesley  on  our  soil,  which 
by  its  popular  character  won  to  itself  so  vast  a  relig- 
ious realm.  That  influence  did  much  to  temper  the 
dogmatic  harshness  of  evangelical  faith  ;  its  Arminian 
ideas,  combined  with  its  fervid  piety,  gave  a  different 
tone  to  the  religion  of  the  masses,  while  at  the  same 
time  much  of  the  irregular  and  half  educated  Chris- 
tianity of  our  land  has  been  owing  to  its  revival  sys- 
tem. All  these  seeds  were  sown  in  the  quick  soil  of 
America.  But  we  may  safely  say  that  there  was  little 
of  the  peculiar  character  of  our  modern  Christianity 
till  after  we  had  passed  the  crisis  of  our  national  birth. 

Here,  then,  we  enter  more  directly  into  the  causes 
which  have  led  to  the  growth  of  our  own  communion. 
I  shall  dwell  on  them  especially,  because  I  wish  to 
show  how  a  true  historic  sketch  at  once  craves  us  a 


The   Church  of  America.  143 

view  of  what  constitutes  our  real  power,  and  destroys 
some  of  the  illusions  so  often  indulged  in  by  our 
Churchmen  of  the  ecclesiastical  type.  Nothing  is 
more  intelligible  to  one  Avho  studies  American  his- 
tory, than  the  increase  of  our  Church.  I  have  said 
that  during  the  colonial  time  it  was  little  more  than 
an  exotic.  And  it  was  not  until  after  it  had  learned 
by  a  hard  lesson  to  sever  itself  from  English  ideas 
and  become  American,  that  it  grew  at  all.  The  Rev- 
olution tried  it  sorely.  Many  of  its  loyal  clergy  and 
laity,  who  had  repeated,  ''  Fear  God  and  honor  the 
king,"  had  been  bitter  foes  of  the  Republic.  It  was 
the  crisis  of  life  and  death.  It  was  owing  to  the  sober 
wisdom  of  the  leaders  that  it  survived  the  trial.  It 
came  forth  a  weak,  yet  organized  Body.  And  from 
that  germ,  those  three  Bishops  and  two  hundred 
clergy,  it  has  become,  by  a  swift  and  unexampled 
growth,  the  Body  we  see  to-day,  its  dioceses  planted 
in  every  State,  representing  so  much  of  the  wealth, 
the  culture,  the  piety  of  the  land.  What  have  been 
the  sources  of  this  power? 

The  secret  lies  in  the  changes  of  our  American  civil- 
ization. It  was  natural  that,  after  the  Revolution, 
there  should  be  a  larger  growth  of  religious  liberty. 
It  had  on  one  hand  its  evil  side.  The  deism  of  Eng- 
land, which  afterward  bore  its  fruit  in  France,  had 
spread,  through  popular  writers  like  Paine,  far  more 
than  we  are  wont  to  think.    But  it  had,  too,  its  neces- 


144  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

sary  and  just  side.  There  had  come  a  natural  revolt 
against  the  dogmatic  severity  of  the  religion  which 
had  grown  in  the  Calvinistic  churches.  Political  free- 
dom joined  with  religious  freedom  against  the  hier- 
archy which  made  the  membership  of  the  Church  the 
condition  of  the  office  in  the  State,  and  imposed  dis- 
abilities on  all  other  religious  bodies  as  sternly  as 
Laud  had  done.  The  Episcopal  Church  had  marked 
attractions.  It  was  Protestant.  No  divines  of  that 
day  had  discovered  that  Protestantism  was  *'a  fail- 
ure." But  more  than  this,  I  beg  you  especially  to 
notice  its  character  at  that  time.  It  was  its  happy 
fortune  to  be  born  at  that  period  in  the  history  of  the 
English  communion  when,  notwithstanding  the  State 
policy,  and  the  partial  decay  of  spiritual  life,  there 
was  perhaps  more  of  a  plain,  strong  sense,  a  practical 
religion  than  in  any  other.  Such  men  as  Bishop 
White  were  its  best  models.  They  were  not  mere 
ecclesiastics.  As  yet  no  Oxford  movement  had  de- 
veloped any  theory  of  Episcopal  absolutism.  They 
were  attached  to  their  own  communion,  but  they 
loved  it  for  its  real  features  of  faith  and  orderly 
growth.  It  was  thus  the  Episcopal  Church  appealed 
to  many  in  the  growing  community.  At  home  it  rep- 
resented tyranny  over  dissenters ;  here  freedom  from 
another  tyranny.  It  was,  first  of  all,  simple  and  liberal 
in  its  doctrinal  standards.  The  narrow  theology  of 
that  time  had  reached  its  most  metaphysical  excess 


TJie  CJmrcJi  of  America.  145 

among  the  Independents  of  New  England,  and  the 
Presbyterians  in  other  States.  There  is  no  more  striking 
parallel  in  religious  history  than  between  the  scholas- 
tic age  of  the  Latin  Church  and  that  of  New  England. 
It  had  its  completeness  when  Edwards's  "'  Treatise  on 
the  Will,"  based  on  the  philosophy  of  Locke,  taught 
necessity  as  the  Christian  gospel.  For  fifty  years  the 
pulpit  was  the  gladiatorial  arena  of  keen  minds  like 
Bellamy  and  Emmons,  and  the  problems  of  physical 
and  moral  ability  were  the  meat  of  the  people.  But, 
as  in  the  Latin  Church,  the  intellect  trained  in  this 
athletic  game,  overthrew  at  last  the  dogmatic  school 
which  bore  it.  Arminianism  first  came  as  a  protest 
against  the  harsh  thunders  and  unloving  subtleties  of 
the  pulpit.  It  was  not  till  later  that  Unitarianism 
appeared  ;  it  grew  earlier  in  the  milder  form  of  Semi- 
Arian  doubt.  The  doctrines  of  the  Incarnation  and 
the  Atonement  had  been  made  metaphysical  notions, 
and  many  men  of  culture  and  of  piety  were  by  degrees 
drifted  into  denial,  because  the  theology  of  New  Eng- 
land was  to  them  the  only  orthodoxy.  I  speak  very 
plainly  my  view  of  this.  It  is  sheer  ignorance  to  talk 
as  if  the  rise  of  scholars  like  Ware  and  Channing  came 
from  a  cold  scepticism.  Unitarianism  on  its  negative 
side  was  an  honest  reaction  against  a  one-sided  theol- 
ogy. It  was  when  it  came  to  state  its  positive  faith 
that  it  found  it  had  nothing  to  state.  It  was,  then, 
as  the  teacher  of  a  plainer  Gospel  that  the  Episcopal 
7 


14^  Epochs  ill   C J  lurch  History, 

Church  gained  large  acceptance.  Its  orthodoxy  was 
undoubted,  yet  it  had  always  embraced  in  its  large 
limits  Calvinist  and  Arminian,  because  it  had  made 
these  questions  of  speculative  theology  secondary. 
Instead  of  a  Westminster  Catechism  it  asked  of  its 
worshippers  the  Apostles'  Creed,  as  the  rule  of  faith. 
And  such  was  the  whole  tenor  of  its  teaching.  The 
pulpit  gave  a  spiritual  food  ;  it  did  not  shut  itself  up 
in  expository  quarrels  over  St.  Paul's  ''  hard  things," 
but  leaned  rather  to  the  practical  precepts  of  duty. 
This  was  unquestionably  a  grand  power.  It  has  drawn 
more  perplexed  souls  into  this  communion  than  all 
reasons  beside.  It  is  the  power  of  the  simple  Creed 
to-day.  And  we  shall  do  well  to  understand  it  now, 
when,  instead  of  this  living  idea,  we  are  told  by  our 
Church  divines  of  the  highest  school  that  Catholic 
truth  consists  in  their  scholastic  theories  of  sacra- 
mental grace,  and  hyperphysical  presence.  They  have 
exactly  reversed  the  position.  They  teach  now  the 
very  metaphysical  Christianity  which  makes  the  Bible 
a  harder  riddle  than  the  Calvinist  has  done.  But 
another  element  of  growth  was  its  constitutional  order ^ 
I  have  always  thought  it  the  happy  inspiration  of  a 
statesman,  which  led  our  Church  Fathers  to  model 
their  system  so  nearly  after  the  federative  plan  of  the 
republic.  It  was  and  has  always  been  one  of  its  vis- 
ible arguments.  The  Independent,  undoubtedly,  de- 
veloped   a  self-governed    freedom.       But    it   had    too 


The  CJmrcJi  of  America.  147 

much  of  a  pure  democracy,  without  checks  and  bal- 
ances; and  its  result  was  too  often  worse  tyranny. 
The  ancient  Mathers  ruled  as  Archbishops,  but  when 
the  clerical  prestige  was  past,  the  tendency  was  the 
other  way,  to  make  the  minister  a  hireling.  Men  were 
tired  of  a  religious  liberty  that  led  to  so  much  quarrel 
between  minister  and  deacons  and  elders,  split  par- 
ishes, crippled  all  organized  harmony.  The  Presby- 
terian kept  too  much  of  the  clerical  aristocracy.  The 
Methodist  could  not  meet  the  wants  of  a  parochial  and 
settled  ministry.  In  the  Episcopal  Church  all  members 
were  under  one  general  law,  their  mutual  rights  and 
functions  adjusted  by  written  statute.  But  we  must 
especially  beware  not  to  confound  this  influence  of  our 
constitutional  order  with  any  extreme  or  exclusive 
notions  of  an  Episcopacy.  There  can  be  no  wiser  or 
weightier  lesson  than  we  may  learn  by  comparing  the 
recorded  ideas  of  our  Church  leaders  of  that  early 
time  with  the  arrogance  of  many  to-day.  There  are 
here  two  points  which  I  must  specially  recall.  The 
first  is  the  sober  emphasis  with  which  the  claim  of 
Episcopal  government  was  defended.  There  was  set 
forth  in  the  convention  of  August,  1783,  '*  a  declara- 
tion of  certain  fundamental  rights  and  liberties  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  Maryland,"  wherein 
the  third  article  reads  thus :  "  Without  caUing  in 
question  the  rights,  modes,  and  forms  of  any  other 
Christian  churches  or  societies,  or  wishing  the  least 


148  Epochs  m  Church  History. 

contest  with  them  on  that  subject,  we  declare  it  an 
essential  right  of  the  said  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
to  have  and  enjoy  a  continuance  of  the  said  three 
orders  of  ministers  forever,  so  far  as  concerns  matters 
purely  spiritual."  This  was  the  simple  position  of  the 
Church  of  England,  as  I  proved  before,  until  the  time 
of  Laud.  The  historic  claim  of  the  Episcopate,  as  from 
primitive  time  kept  in  the  Body,  and  therefore  kept 
by  the  national  body  of  England,  as  wise,  constitu- 
tional, useful,  a  bond  of  unity  and  continuity,  yet  not 
as  any  absolute  dogma,  unchurching  others,  or  deny- 
ing their  valid  ministry  ;  this  is  the  Church  principle 
of  the  Reformation.  Undoubtedly  there  were  those 
then  who  held  more  exclusive  views.  The  personal 
energy  of  Seabury  did  much  to  impress  his  higher 
views  on  Connecticut,  and  the  earlier  converts,  like 
Johnson,  were  won  by  their  doubts  of  ordination  ;  but 
it  was  an  exception  to  the  rule.  It  is  an  absurdity  to 
think  that  any  theory  of  an  Apostolic  Succession  of 
this  exclusive  sort  has  aught  to  do  with  the  just  influ- 
ence of  the  Church.  Such  a  claim,  excluding  a  vast 
body  of  good  and  noble  men,  would  have  killed  its 
growth,  as  it  leaves  it  now  high  and  dry  on  the  barren 
shore.  Our  constitutional  order  is  the  power  of  this 
Church.  We  maintain  all  the  historic  weight  of  the 
Episcopal  office,  but  it  is  only  one  part  in  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Body.  And  here  another  feature  of  the 
early  record  is  deserving  of  special  note.     The  partici- 


The  CImrcJi  of  America.  149 

pationof  the  laity  in  our  legislation  was  settled  by  the 
same  men.  At  the  time  when  they  earnestly  asked  the 
Episcopate  from  England,  it  was  much  feared  by  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury  and  others  that  the  demo- 
cratic character  of  the  new  country  might  lead  to  in- 
trusion on  clerical  privileges.  It  is  very  interest- 
ing to  read  the  clear  replies  from  the  American 
Churchmen.  They  insisted  on  lay  representation. 
They  upheld  it  as  of  Scriptural,  primitive  use  ;  and 
furthermore  as  a  feature  without  which  no  church  could 
grow  in  America.  In  this  spirit  their  ecclesiastical 
government  was  conformed  as  nearly  as  possible  to 
the  national  type.  The  representative  idea  was  em- 
bodied in  it.  Its  power  was  vested  in  a  constitutional 
body  whose  two  houses  embraced  clergy  and  laity. 
No  arbitrary  or  unwritten  prerogative  was  given  to  its 
bishops.  It  has  been  objected  that  in  this  one  feature, 
which  makes  our  House  of  Bishops  a  separate  and 
permanent  body  in  convention,  we  have  what  is  incon- 
sistent v/ith  our  constitutional  system,  and  nearer  to 
the  English  House  of  Lords.  We  may  not,  perhaps, 
avoid  it  ;  and  we  have,  as  the  Parliament  has  done, 
hedged  it  vvnth  so  much  restriction  that  the  balance  is 
preserved.  But  it  is  only  fair  to  say  that  the  objec- 
tion made  to  it  on  this  ground  by  critics  out  of  our 
Church  as  so  far  not  representative  is  a  valid  one. 

Last  of  all,  I  name  as  the  source  of  its  influence,  its 
common  worship.     It  had  been  from  a  natural  reac- 


150  Epochs  in   Church  History. 

tion  that  the  Puritan,  the  iconoclast  of  England, 
threw  away  the  Prayer-book  with  the  Romanism 
which  had  overlaid  it ;  but  it  was  not  long  before  the 
barrenness  of  their  worship,  the  substitution  of  sub- 
jective piety  for  the  practical  methods  of  Christian 
growth,  an  element  which  became  dominant  after  the 
time  of  Whitgift,  were  largely  felt.  The  simplicity, 
the  devoutness,  the  good  taste  of  the  Prayer-book, 
were  in  harmony  with  the  reverent  feeling  of  many. 
It  gave  their  religion  a  personal  bond.  All  wants  were 
met  in  it ;  the  orderly  selections  from  the  Word  of 
God,  the  stately  chants,  the  seasons  that  recalled  the 
life  of  Christ,  the  responsive  prayers,  were  a  living 
structure.  More  than  this,  the  sober  character  of  the 
religion  it  fostered,  was  a  visible  argument.  There 
were  many  who  felt  that  the  pulpit  had  preached  too 
much  faith  which  quarrelled  with  good  works,  until 
it  lost  sight  of  the  fruit  of  a  living  piety  in  the  graces 
of  the  household,  and  the  morality  of  social  life.  It  is 
not  strange  that  this  should  have  given  our  own  com- 
munion a  vast  influence.  It  is  a  shallow  view  of  our 
liturgical  system,  to  think  it  only  nurses  ''  a  religion 
of  good  taste."  Doubtless,  the  love  of  such  forms 
grows  with  social  culture.  But  it  has  a  deeper  source. 
The  love  of  a  real  religion,  of  sound  methods  of  Chris- 
tian nurture,  is  linked  with  it.  Such,  I  hold,  was  our 
true  power.  Yet  here,  I  must  remark,  how  admira- 
ble was  the  spirit  of  our  Fathers,  in  contrast  with  any 


The  CJmrch  of  America.  -151 

ritual  formalism.  They  knew  that  a  liturgical  wor- 
ship must  be  adapted  to  the  wants  of  the  time  and 
land  w^iere  it  was  planted.  The  Athanasian  and 
Nicene  Creeds  were  omitted  in  the  '*  Proposed  Book," 
and  the  ''  descent  into  hell  "  also  ;  the  alternate  phrase 
in  the  ordination  service  was  inserted,  and  the  Office 
of  Visitation  for  the  Sick  was  purged  of  its  absolving 
sentence.  It  was  by  the  urgent  request  of  the  Eng- 
lish bishops  that  the  Nicene  Creed  and  the  "  descent  " 
were  permitted  ;  but  as  to  the  rest,  they  were  insisted 
on.  The  spirit  of  these  changes  may  well  be  recalled, 
to  show  how  much  more  of  an  intelligent  freedom  in- 
spired them  than  many  modern  Churchmen.  All  of 
them  were  on  the  side  of  a  generous  liberty.  The 
Athanasian  Creed,  it  was  expressly  said,  w^as  omitted, 
not  from  any  doubt  of  its  truth  as  a  doctrinal  formula, 
but  because  a  metaphysical  creed  was  not  suited  to 
Church  worship.  It  is  a  pity,  indeed,  that  the  exclusion 
of  the  very  questionable  and  far  from  primitive  inter- 
polation of  the  "  descent "  had  not  been  insisted  on  also. 
The  only  change  which  looked  like  higher  sacramental 
notions,  was  in  the  Communion  Office,  adopted  from 
the  Scotch  liturgy.  Yet  there  is  no  essential  difference 
from  the  English  office,  only  parts  there  reserved  for 
prayers  are  here  inserted  in  the  Consecration.  Enough 
was  done  to  prove  that  this  Church  acknowledged  no 
mere  Anglican  or  other  tradition  as  its  liturgical  law. 
Its  rule  cannot  be  better  stated   than  in  the  words  of 


152  EpocJis  in  CInircJi  History. 

the  letter  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury.  They 
wished  to  ''  keep  whatever  was  necessary  to  the  faith 
and  order  of  the  Church,  with  such  changes  as  were 
needed  for  its  growth  in  America."  A  sober,  intelU- 
gent,  large  principle,  worthy  to  be  the  monument  of 
their  wisdom,  as  it  has  been  the  real  source  of  all 
that  is  genuine  in  our  Church  life.  There  is  not  one 
trace  of  the  stolid  churchmanship,  which  refuses  all 
change,  and  calls  itself  conservatism. 

Such,  then,  I  sum  all  in  saying,  were  the  grand 
features  of  this  communion,  as  it  began,  and  as  it 
has  enlarged  itself  to  its  present  proportions.  It  has 
gained  beyond  many  Protestant  bodies,  because  it  has 
united  this  reverence  for  a  historic  and  settled  Chris- 
tianity with  a  spiritual  life  and  freedom.  Almost  all 
its  growth  has  been  from  those  not  bred  in  its  own 
household,  but  won  to  it  by  these  attractions.  Well 
can  I  remember  how  in  my  youth,  after  years  of  per- 
plexity amidst  the  strifes  of  theological  parties,  this 
stately  fabric  of  the  Church  rose  before  me ;  its  plain 
historic  creed,  its  rich  liturgical  structure,  its  simple 
and  reasonable  system  of  Christian  education,  as  a 
living  growth,  so  different  from  all  theories  of  school 
divinity,  took  captive  my  mind,  my  affections,  and  my 
whole  being.  It  has  been  the  experience  of  thou- 
sands. It  will  be  so,  so  long  as  the  Church  is  true  to 
its  own  spirit. 

With  such  a  sketch  of  the  past  religious  history  of 


The  Church  of  America.  153 

America  we  are,  I  believe,  ready  for  a  just  under- 
standing of  the  question  as  it  is.  As  we  look  around 
us  on  the  character  of  Christianity  to-day  it  may  seem 
on  its  surface  a  motley  and  disorganized  world.  Our 
religion  is  the  very  picture  of  our  peculiar  social 
growth.  We  see  the  original  communions  which 
shaped  it  in  various  stages  of  development.  They 
represent  a  large  and  positive  religious  element  which 
has  by  no  means  lost  its  influence.  But  with  our  Prot- 
estant bodies  there  have  grown  also  other  elements 
not  so  visible  in  the  past.  Our  religious  freedom  has 
given  a  natural  vent  to  all  those  varieties  of  thought 
and  activity  more  repressed  in  European  life.  All 
the  wild  extravagance  of  sect  has  had  its  outlet  here. 
Nor  only  this.  There  has  steadily  grown  the  vast 
body  of  those  who  in  the  division  of  sect  have  thrown 
off  the  restraints  of  all  church  organization.  We  have 
imported  here  the  culture  of  Europe  ;  and  although 
we  have  not  the  same  advancement  in  science  and 
letters,  the  ideas  of  the  older  world  have  entered 
into  the  mind  of  the  people.  In  many  ways  we  see 
the  formation  of  unbelief,  .of  a  distinct  antagonism 
to  a  settled  Christian  faith.  It  has  come  partly  out 
of  a  decomposition  of  religious  sects.  The  Unitarian- 
ism  of  New  England  has  passed  into  a  Naturalism, 
which  has  frightened  its  older,  more  devout  believers, 
and  led  them  back  to  a  positive  faith,  while  it  has 
borne  with  it  the  younger,  more  advanced  generation. 


154  EpocJis  in  Church  History. 

It  is  the  tendency  of  the  so-called  liberal  Christianity 
to  ally  itself  to-day  with  the  modern  school  of  science 
which  rejects  all  revelation.  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
we  see  the  strange  growth  in  this  land  of  the  Romish 
Church.  It  has  conquered  for  itself,  under  the  name 
of  religious  liberty,  almost  a  grander  realm  than  in 
the  old  world  ;  and  although  it  came  with  the  most 
ignorant  of  our  emigrants,  it  has  become  a  political 
and  social  as  well  as  religious  power  which  holds  the 
balance  in  legislation,  threatens  our  system  of  popular 
education,  and  alarms  many  for  the  safety  of  the 
Republic. 

What,  then,  is  the  view  which  as  Christian  men  we 
ought  to  take  of  this  condition  ?  It  is  not  at  all 
strangle  that  it  should  call  forth  all  manner  of  theories 
according  to  the  hopes  and  fears  of  men.  The  disci- 
ple of  free  religion  is  looking  for  the  decomposition 
of  Christianity  in  the  quick-lime  of  Our  soil.  The 
Roman  priest  is  expecting  a  grander  empire  here. 
The  Protestant  of  this  or  that  denomination  is  in  ter- 
ror of  both.  And  the  Churchman  is  confident  his  is 
to  be  tJie  Church  of  America.  I  cannot  sympathize 
with  any  such  theories.  I  have  no  theories  to  offer, 
but  simply  what  I  hold  to  be  the  conclusions  of  our 
history.  Let  me  not  be  misunderstood  as  if  I  did  not 
soberly  appreciate  all  the  perils  of  our  American 
world  ;  as  if  either  in  its  political  or  religious  aspects 
I  were  such  a  smiling  optimist  as  to  forget  that  its 


The  CJmrcJi  of  America.  155 

destiny  depends  on  the  maintenance  of  faith,  of  order, 
of  Christian  law.  But  it  is  because  we  can  read  in 
this  history  the  proofs  of  a  divine  and  guiding  power 
in  the  past  that  I  would  study  it  to-day. 

I  have  already  said  that  in  Europe  the  growth  of 
Christianity  has  been  bound  up  with  the  whole  social 
history  of  the  world  ;  and  thus  its  national  and  re- 
ligious life  have  wrought  together  for  the  result.  I 
have  shown  that  here  the  entirely  differing  conditions 
of  the  growth  were  the  Providential  signs  of  a  newer 
and  larger  result,  as  well  in  its  social  as  its  Christian 
character.  I  cannot,  then,  believe  that  there  is  to  be 
any  one  body  which  shall  absorb  into  itself  all  the 
religious  life.  The  cure  of  unbelief  on  one  side,  and 
Romanism  on  the  other,  will  be  by  the  cultivation  of 
sound  learning;  by  the  promotion  of  a  religious  life, 
which  shall,  by  degrees,  bring  our  denominations  out 
from  their  rival  systems  into  the  unity  of  a  simple 
Apostolic  faith  and  order.  But  that  process  is  one 
which  must  go  forward  by  true  growth,  in  this  free 
social  atmosphere.  As  in  that  guiding  light  I  regard 
the  present,  I  can  see,  in  the  first  place,  nothing 
strange  or  perplexing  in  our  past  growth.  There  is 
no  reason  why  we  should  doubt  that  the  religion  of 
Christ  has  as  strong  a  hold  on  the  convictions  of  the 
people,  as  it  has  abroad.  I  believe  it  has  a  stronger 
hold.  I  believe  that  there  is  less  with  us  of  the  de- 
veloped  unbelief,  to-day   seen  so  largely  in  the  Old 


156  Epochs  in  Chiwch  History. 

World  ;  and  that  because  the  causes  that  produced 
it  abroad,  the  oppression  of  the  State  Churches,  the 
despotism  of  a  Latin  hierarchy,  are  not  known  among 
us.  Much  as  I  deplore  the  rivalry  of  sects,  and  the 
excess  of  our  ''  unchartered  freedom,"  I  hold  that  this 
experiment  of  freedom  has  more  than  compensated 
by  this  result.  I  say  it  again,  and  with  emphasis, 
we  are,  compared  with  the  Europe  of  to-day,  a  more 
religious  people.  And,  if  we  believe  that  the  truth 
of  Christ  is  divine,  is  victorious  over  error,  we  surely 
ought  not  to  think  that  such  freedom  will  be  other 
in  the  end  than  the  way  of  its  nobler  success. 

But  this  brings  me  to  the  next  point,  that  we  are  to 
look  for  the  true  method  of  our  Christian  action  in 
the  forces  which  only  can  bring  such  a  result.  This 
America  of  ours  wants  a  settled  faith  ;  it  wants  the 
organized  order  of  the  Church.  But  to  achieve  it  we 
must  find  the  soil  in  the  character  of  the  people  and 
the  law  of  its  growth.  It  is  very  plain  then,  or  ought 
to  be,  that  any  who  dream  of  imposing  on  it  a  de- 
velopment such  as  grew  in  Europe  out  of  its  differ- 
ing conditions  of  national  or  religious  life,  are  only 
dreamers.  This  soil  will  never  produce  a  hierarchy 
which  can  sway  it.  I  think  we  should  soberly  weigh 
the  "  Roman  question."  It  is  strange  how  many  fear- 
ful souls  are  talking  of  the  influence  of  Rome,  as,  per- 
haps, the  dominant  religion,  because  of  its  centralized 
strength.     Yet   they  should   see   that   its  growth  has 


TJie  CJmrcJi  of  America.  157 

been,  and  is,  from  special  causes,  from  the  influx  of 
Irish  emigration,  the  political  demagogism  in  our 
great  cities,  and  the  machinery  of  its  leaders.  But  it 
has  no  roots  in  the  national  soil.  It  was  plain,  in  our 
great  civil  strife,  that  it  worked  for  its  own  selfish 
ends  alone.  I  do  not  doubt  that  we  have  stern  bat- 
tles to  fight  with  it,  I  would  not  lean,  then,  with  care- 
less trust  on  our  institutions,  I  would  resist  that 
Church  to  the  death,  in  every  effort  to  control  our 
school  system.  If  it  once  gain  there  the  temporary 
triumph,  it  may  put  back  the  social  growth,  which 
alone  can  master  it  as  a  disturbing  element,  for  a  gen- 
eration to  come.  Our  hope  is  in  the  power  of  educa- 
tion, at  last,  to  make  its  ignorant  devotees  intelligent 
members  of  the  Commonwealth.  If  we  secure  this, 
we  may  safely  leave  to  time  the  sure  struggle  with  its 
selfish  hierarchy.  It  will  grow  in  its  peculiar  Avay. 
It  has  the  right  of  just  liberty.  But,  if  it  will  not 
yield  to  the  law  of  the  social  commonwealth,  it  will 
reach  by  and  by  the  point  where  the  last  battle  will 
sweep  it  into  its  grave.  No  hierarchy  of  any  type 
will  be  usurper  over  this  free  land. 

But  if  such  be  our  trust  in  regard  to  this  issue  of 
our  time  it  must  surely  teach  us  the  principles  of  our 
Christian  faith,  and  aim  as  they  bear  on  ourselves.  I 
repeat  that  no  one  church  and  no  one  system  can  ever 
expect  to  shape  the  religious  life  of  this  country.  It 
must  be  a  growth,  as  nowhere  else,  of  manifold  ele- 


158  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

ments.  And  do  I  mean  by  this  that  there  is  no  such 
thing  as  a  positive  Christianity  ;  that  we  are  to  remain 
a  chaos  of  sect  ?  God  forbid  !  I  beHeve  there  are 
certain  foundation  truths  on  which  the  Church  rests  ; 
and  that  all  divisions  have  arisen  because  our  one- 
sided systems  of  doctrine  or  polity  have  led  us  away 
from  them.  But  I  will  not  confound  this  Catholicity 
with  any  that  either  interprets  the  Apostles'  Creed  by 
the  Westminster  Confession,  or  the  historic  order  of 
the  Church  by  the  theory  of  an  exclusive  Episcopal 
ministry.  It  is  precisely  my  faith  that  uiore  than  in 
Europe  our  religious  freedom  of  development  will  lead 
to  a  friendly  inquiry  into  the  common  ground  on 
which  our  Protestant  Christianity  should  rest.  And 
if  I  be  told  that  we  are  as  a  people  the  most  averse 
from  such  historic  ideas,  I  answer  that  I  cannot  think 
.so.  We  have  naturally  in  political  or  social  life  sev- 
ered ourselves  from  the  despotism  of  past  types  ;  but 
it  is  only  to  find  at  last,  as  we  grow  older  and  wiser, 
our  true  historic  growth.  But  I  am  not  reasoning  of 
abstract  hopes.  Amidst  all  the  wild  growths  of  relig- 
ious liberty  here  there  is  this  real  and  sober  progress 
already.  As  I  look  at  the  position  of  almost  all  the 
great  Protestant  bodies  of  this  land  nothing  is  more 
striking  than  their  inward  growth.  Few  pulpits  preach 
the  harsh  Calvinism  of  former  days  ;  a  moderate  the- 
ology has  brought  them  together.  The  one-sided 
tendency  of  their  worship  has  been  modified  ;  there  is 


r 


TJie  Church  of  America.  159 

a  disposition  toward  those  features  of  our  own  Cliurch 
once  held  to  be  suspicious,  a  liturgical  worship  and 
sacred  art.  It  is  amusing  to  hear  some  of  our  clergy 
still  firing  their  rusty  guns  at  the  doctrine  of  election 
or  limited  atonement,  as  if  they  imagined  they  were 
taught  to-day.  This  growth  has  come  from  the  sound 
progress  of  a  Christian  learning,  and  from  a  common 
labor  in  this  great  field  of  Christian  action.  The  two 
great  bodies  of  Presbyterians,  after  a  half  century  of 
quarrel,  have  come  together.  Liberal  thinkers,  like 
Albert  Barnes  and  Bushnell,  once  tried  for  heresy,  are 
among  the  leaders  of  their  faith.  The  Union  Theo- 
logical Seminary,  as  well  as  others,  are  graced  by 
many  of  its  best  scholars  in  every  field.  Baptist  and 
Methodist,  once  classed  among  the  decriers  of  learn- 
ing, have  had  the  same  growth.  Their  religious  re- 
views, their  contributions  to  Christian  literature,  are 
noble.  We  see  no  longer  the  want  of  order,  of  reve- 
rent worship,  once  charged  on  them.  I  rejoice  in  it. 
I  should  be  untrue  to  every  idea  of  Christian  history 
if  I  did  not.  And  here  I  believe  is  to  be  our  hope 
also  in  the  struggle  with  all  the  adverse  forces  of  an 
unchristian  science  or  social  culture.  Whatever  Church 
of  Christ  leads  the  van  in  the  teaching  of  the  simple, 
living  faith,  in  the  promotion  of  a  genuine  science,  in 
the  real  work  of  a  Christian  benevolence,  will  be  fore- 
most in  its  influence  on  our  American  life. 

And  here,  then,  is  the  place,  where  I  can  and  will 


i6o  EpocJis  in  Church  History. 

speak  my  honest  convictions,  as  they  concern  the  wel- 
fare  of  our  own  great  communion.  Pardon  me,  if  I 
hide  notliing.  I  have  sliovvn  already  what  were  the 
true  sources  of  our  growth  in  this  America  in  the  ear- 
Her  days  ;  that  noble  character,  as  a  Church,  holding 
its  plain  creed,  its  constitutional  law,  its  fair  worship, 
its  practical  system  was  the  secret  of  it  all.  And  I 
have  now  to  say,  that  within  these  forty  years  we  have 
lost  much  of  that  power.  It  has  come  in  part  from 
the  rise  among  us  of  that  Anglican  reaction,  held  by 
so  many  to  be  the  exponent  of  Church  principles.  But 
while  I  see  and  deplore  this  influx  of  opinions,  which 
have  ended  in  an  advanced  Ritualistic  movement,  I  am 
constrained  to  believe  that  the  cause  lies  deeper.  I 
hold  that  such  views  have  been  largely  owing  to  the 
tendency  of  a  body  like  ours,  whose  dominant  spirit  is 
over-conservatism,  to  feed  the  ecclesiastic  spirit.  Ritu- 
alism, to  my  mind,  is  not  our  chief  peril.  It  is  a  fashion 
that  passeth  away.  Its  error  lies  in  ideas,  not  costume  ; 
it  lies  in  the  substitution  of  the  principles  of  a  hierarchy 
for  the  true  historic  view  of  the  Church.  We  have  tried 
to  adopt  the  theory  of  a  Church  infallibility  instead  of  a 
simple  creed  ;  an  exclusive  Episcopal  ministry  instead 
of  an  historic  order  ;  a  system  of  sacramental  grace  and 
priestly  authority  instead  of  the  practical  Church  views 
of  other  days.  And  this,  I  repeat,  is  no  sudden  trans- 
formation. It  has  been  a  growth.  The  spirit  of  our 
Church  has  been,  under  the  guise  of  order,  to  check  the 


TJie  CJiurcJi  of  America,  i6i 

spiritual  life,  which  only  can  keep  the  body  free  from 
its  natural  diseases.  The  one  illusion,  which  has  car- 
ried away  even  our  sound-hearted  Churchmen,  who  do 
not  believe  in  any  extravagance,  has  been  this,  that  , 
we  are  to  be  tJie  Church  of  America,  which  shall  absorb 
all  others  in  its  organization.  That  dream  has  led 
them  to  identify  its  real  elements  of  constitutional 
law  with  an  exclusive  Episcopate,  of  orderly  worship 
with  our  Prayer  Book,  to  make  the  ministry  th.Q  pivot 
of  the  Church.  They  have  believed  that  the  world 
was  waiting  to  be  adopted  by  our  communion.  They 
could  not  see  that  this  was  only  a  milder  type  of  the 
Romanist  monomania ;  and  this  has  stiffened  our 
policy.  Both  parties  have  shared  it  in  different  fash- 
ion ;  both  have  been  absorbed  in  the  same  idea  ;  that 
our  safety  amidst  the  rushing  tides  was  to  live  in  our 
little  light-house.  The  main  purpose  of  our  Church  in 
this  land  of  freedom,  has  been  to  stand  aloof  from 
sect ;  we  have  not  until  lately  begun  to  learn  that  we 
have  other  and  more  fatal  vices  to  fear.  Our  legisla- 
tion has  admitted  little  of  needful  reform.  We  have 
done  much  practical  work  in  laying  out  our  dioceses 
and  improving  organization.  But  well-nigh  every 
canon  has  been  for  restriction  not  for  generous  al- 
lowance. A  changeless  uniformity  has  been  our  prin- 
ciple of  unity;  at  times  noble  efforts  have  been  made 
and  failed.  Within  my  experience  two  such  movements 
have  been  signal  examples  of  this  spirit.     The  memo- 


1 62  Epochs  i7t  Church  History. 

rial  of  1853  sought  only  a  little  flexibility  in  our  rou- 
tine of  service  ;  but  while,  to  the  honor  of  our  Bish- 
ops be  it  said,  they  were  on  the  side  of  wise  adaptation, 
it  was  lost  by  the  general  opposition  ;  and  that,  too, 
of  both  great  parties.  The  Baptismal  controversy  has 
been  another.  Our  great  body  could  not,  for  the  sake 
of  keeping  within  it  some  of  its  most  earnest  and  con- 
scientious clergy,  grant  even  the  change  of  a  few  words 
of  a  rubric  involving  no  loss  of  any  essential  truth.  Only 
of  late  have  we  allowed  any  modification,  even  for 
mission  work  among  the  Germans  or  Italians.  This 
temper  has  led  to  one-sidedness;  has  punished  the 
invasion  of  a  parish  boundary  line,  while  they  who 
would  turn  its  worship  into  a  toy-shop  have  been 
quietly  allowed  to  work  for  their  own  aims.  Its  ad- 
vance has  been  signal  in  architecture  and  in  ritual ; 
but  it  has  not  kept  pace  in  the  education  of  its  min- 
istry with  other  bodies,  whom  it  scornfully  calls  dis- 
senters. There  has  been  a  steady  tendency,  to  copy 
the  Anglican  model,  instead  of  the  simple  Apostolic 
commonwealth,  our  true  glory  and  our  power;  and  we 
are  dreaming  of  recasting  the  antique  provincial  sys- 
tem ;  metropolitan,  deans,  chapters  of  the  Cathedral 
Church.  There  are  some  among  us  who  are  desirous 
to  put  our  Church  into  alliance  with  the  sees  of  Can- 
terbury and  York.  I  rejoice  that  the  good  sense  of 
our  convention  has  checked  that  movement.  We  are 
no  more  in   a  Pan-Anglican   Church,  than   in  a  Pan- 


The  CJnirch  of  A  merica.  1 6^ 

Anglican  political  system.  It  is  to  narrow  our  real 
Catholicity,  as  well  as  to  lose  our  autonomy  to  think  it. 
We  have  been  drifting  away  from  our  true  position  into 
this  ecclesiastical  Dead  Sea.  I  repeat  it,  for  I  knew  its 
truth  ;  boast  as  we  please,  we  do  not  stand  to-day  as  we 
did  thirty  years  ago  in  the  eyes  of  the  intelligent  men 
of  America,  as  the  communion  to  which  they  look  for 
a  large  and  noble  unity  amidst  confusions,  but  rather 
as  an  arrogant  sect.  Other  communions  have  been  ad- 
vancing in  generous  growth  :  we  have  been  going  back- 
v/ard.  In  my  youth  the  best  brain  and  piety  of  the 
Protestant  sects  were  looking  toward  our  ministry.  It 
is  not  so  now.  With  rare  exceptions  we  get  only 
their  waifs  and  strays,  their  lesser  men,  who  want 
ordination  to  hide  their  lack  of  all  else,  and  who  be- 
come our  advanced  Churchmen. 

I  repeat  it,  it  is  folly  to  hide  these  facts.  It  is  woX 
loyalty  to  say  that  this  Church  is  what  it  was  because 
it  uses  the  same  service-book,  or  to  think  that  silence 
will  save  discord.  We  have  to  thank  ourselves  for  the 
surprise  which  has  taken  place  in  the  formation  of  the 
Reformed  Church.  It  was,  as  I  hold  it,  a  lamentable 
mistake.  I  regard  it  as  an  act  of  desertion  to  leave 
this  noble  body  in  the  midst  of  its  battle.  What  good 
in  creating  another  bisected  Christianity?  What  folly 
to  expect  a  Church  exempt  from  the  vices  and  antag- 
onisms of  every  such  division  !  I  will  not  judge  their 
consciences,  or  repeat  the  foolish  charge  of  schism.     I 


164  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

will  only  say,  that  it  was  no  act  of  ripe  wisdom  or 
true  courage.  But  it  is  blindness  to  forget  that  it 
came  from  our  own  defects  ;  and  it  will  be  greater 
blindness  if,  in  our  dislike  or  dread  of  that  result,  we 
do  not  learn  the  lesson  it  is  to  teach  us.  The  truth 
for  us  to  know  is,  that  we  have  this  battle  to  fight  out 
within  the  Church ;  that  we  are  contending,  not  for 
radical  principles,  but  for  sound  Church  principles. 

And  such,  I  hold,  is  to  be  the  result  of  this  strug- 
gle. It  is  a  necessary  one.  It  will  teach  us  what  our 
work  is  as  a  living  Church  of  Christ  in  this  fair  land. 
We  have  a  noble  heritage  and  a  noble  opportunity. 
We  have  this  comprehensive  faith ;  we  have  a  sym- 
metrical worship  ;  we  have  a  constitutional  order  ;  we 
have  a  practical  system  of  organized  life.  In  these  we 
are  superior  to  any  and  to  all  around  us ;  we  are  free 
from  the  hindrances,  theological  and  actual,  which  en- 
cumber them.  We  can  speak,  as  few  others  can,  the 
truth  and  the  law  needed  for  our  land  and  time.  We 
cannot  be  the  Church  of  America.  But  if,  without  selfish 
ambition,  without  that  aggressive  policy,  which  some 
of  our  Churchmen  prate  of,  and  which  is  the  very  soul 
of  all  sectism,  we  feel  that  we  are  simply  toiling  to 
advance  Christ's  Kingdom,  that  we  are  only  wit- 
nesses in  the  truth  we  hold,  to  one  Church,  larger 
than  any  part  of  it.  If  we  depend  on  our  growth  in  a 
better  learning,  in  a  generous  action ;  if  we  strive  to 
make  our  worship  flexible  and  catholic  ;  if  we  allow  a 


The  Church  of  America,  165 

spirit  of  wise  reform  in  our  methods  alike  of  worship 
and  Church  organization,  we  can  and  may  become  the 
noblest  of  all  churches.  But  it  will  come  no  other 
way.  It  is  a  fatal  churchmanship  that  thinks  we  can 
win  any  lasting  results  here  save  by  this  growth.  Our 
claims  of  an  exclusive  ministry,  our  imitations  of 
Anglican  or  early  Anglican  costume  will  not  ripen  in 
this  soil.  They  may  create  their  little  circle  of 
devotees,  but  the  manly  thought,  the  active  strength 
of  the  nation  will  be  lost  to  us.  Our  Episcopate 
must  be  seen  to  be  no  needless  ornament ;  not  the 
queen  bee  of  the  hive  to  keep  up  the  succession,  but 
the  most  active  in  work,  and  the  least  active  in  self- 
seeking.  Our  clergy  must  be  no  caste,  who  can  be  in- 
ferior in  all  else  because  valid  in  imposition  of  hands, 
but  must  be  abreast  with  the  culture  of  their  time.  If 
we  feel  this  spirit  it  will  make  us  prize  our  gifts  as  a 
historic  Church,  not  because  they  sever  us  from  others, 
but  because  they  give  us  the  generous  desire  of  unity. 
Such,  I  conclude,  is  our  place  and  labor.  Is  it  a 
dream  ?  At  times  when  I  look  on  the  confusions  and 
follies  of  the  hour,  I  am  tempted  to  despair.  But 
when  I  look  beneath  these  at  the  capacities  of  life  in 
our  whole  faith  and  worship,  when  I  recall  the  heroes 
and  sages  of  the  Reformation,  when  I  reflect  on  our 
own  past,  and  all  it  has  bequeathed  us  of  wisdom  and 
goodness,  then  I  rise  in  unquenched  hope  that  God 
will  not  allow  us  to  be  dwarfed  and   shrunken  into  a 


1 66  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

small  hierarchy,  but  may  make  us  at  last  equal  to  our 
divine  opportunities.  Yes.  I  thank  Him  that  here  I 
can  speak  with  faith.  I  can  reach  calmer  and  better  con- 
clusions than  m.any  of  my  Evangelical  brethren,  because 
I  read  history  with  other  eyes.  I  find  here  no  strife  of 
unchangeable  doctrine  between  two  parties,  but  I 
see  here  as  I  see  in  the  Church  of  England  the  crises 
through  which  we  are  passing  to  our  riper  conviction. 
Thirty  or  forty  years  are  but  a  point  in  Church  life. 
Its  end  will  be  to  prove  not  alone  the  folly  of  our  Rit- 
ualists, but  the  untenableness  of  the  Church  system 
which  gave  them  birth.  The  strife  will  be  fought 
out  by  the  learning,  the  experimental  logic  of  these 
years,  and  the  party  which  has  staked  its  life  on  the 
battle  will  not  rise  again.  Yes,  it  is  well  worth  fight- 
ing for.  We  will  not  outlaw  ourselves,  but  will 
maintain  this  Church  against  its  usurpers.  There  is 
coming  forth  from  the  best  minds  of  the  old  parties 
a  newer  generation  who  will  combine  with  the 
clear  knowledge  of  the  historic  features  of  this  com- 
munion its  evangelical  life  ;  a  better  love  of  its  order, 
its  worship,  its  Christian  art,  and  with  it  a  true  free- 
dom. Let  us  only  put  away  dead  issues,  put  away 
the  violence  of  parties,  the  weapons  of  denunciation, 
and  the  fatal  non  qideta  movcrc,  the  policy  of  the 
barnacle  on  the  ship's  bottom,  not  of  the  seaman  ;  let 
us  work  for  the  positive  aims  of  the  time,  to  build  up 
a  sound  education,  to  study  fairly  the  history  of  the 


TJie  Church  of  America.  167 

past,  to  promote  a  comprehensive  legislation,  to  con- 
vince those  who  are  seeking  a  Church  of  Christ  that  it 
is  to  be  found  in  no  Nicene  theories,  but  in  these 
sober  principles. 

Is  it  a  dream  ?  If  so,  let  me  live  and  die  a  dreamer. 
But  it  is  not  so.  We  are  sailing  along  the  broad  ocean 
of  our  history,  nor  can  we  see  beyond  the  horizon  that 
lifts  itself  to  each  age  on  the  great  circle  of  the  unknown 
Providence  ;  yet  we  believe  in  Him  who  holds  the 
waters  in  the  hollow  of  His  hand,  and  if  at  whiles  the 
sun  does  not  escape  the  eclipse,  the  needle  still  points 
to  the  pole.  If  this  Church  fail  in  its  high  mission,  if  it 
be  wrecked  on  the  sunken  rocks  of  its  ambition,  or 
cast  far  up  on  the  barren  beach  of  its  indolence,  we 
know  that  the  Church  of  God  abides  forever. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  THE  FUTURE. 

It  is  impossible  for  any  who  believe  in  the  unity 
and  progress  of  the  race,  above  all  who  believe  in 
that  idea  of  a  Divine  guidance  in  human  history 
which  is  the  faith  of  Christianity,  not  to  have  some 
thought  as  to  the  character  of  the  future  lying  be- 
yond the  present  age  of  crude  civilization.  If  \here 
be  a  purpose  in  the  life  and  growth  of  the  race,  if  the 
centuries  of  the  past  be  not  a  play  of  blind  forces,  we 
must  look  forward  to  some  avvreXeia  of  the  world. 
We  cannot  think  that  all  the  strifes  of  social  and  re- 
ligious thought,  the  struggles  of  humanity  after  truth, 
virtue,  order,  shall  have  no  result.  Even  Auguste 
Comte,  while  he  saw  no  God  in  the  world,  was  forced 
by  the  needs  of  his  moral  nature  to  create  that  Supreme 
Being  which  he  personified  as  Humanity,  and  to  pre- 
dict for  the  race  an  immortality  he  denied  to  the 
personal  man.  But,  while  we  build  our  ideal,  Chris- 
tian or  un-Christian,  of  some  perfect  age,  we  must  re- 
member that  the  knowledge  of  the  past  is  the  only  sure 
prophecy  of  the  future.  All  our  dreamers,  from  the 
earlier  Messianic  vision  of  a  millennial  reign  of  the 
saints  to  the  elect  of  the  new  Church  of  Comte,  have 

woven  their  faith  out  of  a  speculative  fancy. 

i68 


The  Church  of  the  Future.  169 

It  is  quite  another  task  I  have  set  for  myself 
in  this  last  lecture.  My  warmest  belief  is  in  a  nobler 
age,  which  shall  fulfil  the  unity  of  Christian  history. 
It  would  be,  indeed,  a  most  imperfect  view  of  so  great 
a  subject,  if  I  should  dismiss  it  without  some  sober 
thought,  some  confirming  hope  of  the  results  of  those 
movements  in  our  own  period  which  I  have  por- 
trayed. I  believe  in  that  Church  of  the  Future,  to 
which  the  noble  Bunsen  has  given  its  inspiring  name. 
But,  I  am  most  anxious  to  separate  my  ideas,  at  the 
outset,  from  any  theoretical  notions,  so  often  min- 
gled with  that  subject.  IMy  aim  will  be  strictly  to 
sum  up  the  historic  facts  we  have  already  gained, 
and  to  learn  what  clear  light  the  past  of  Christendom 
throws  on  the  untried  problem  of  the  next  age. 

It  is,  then,  I  observe  at  the  outset,  the  real  and  rea- 
sonable conclusion  which  this  study  of  the  unity  of 
Christian  history  gives  us,  that  it  enables  us  to  follow 
its  laws  by  mere  intuition  from  the  beginning  to  the 
end.  Let  me  state  the  one  guiding  principle,  which 
has  been  verified  by  our  historic  process.  The  reve- 
lation of  Christ  has  been  seen  to  be  in  its  origin  a 
divine  yet  human  fact,  based  on  the  fullest  concep- 
tion of  the  nature  and  destiny  of  the  race  on  earth, 
and  in  its  growth  as  a  religion  knit  with  the  growing 
stages  of  human  civilization.  It  declared  at  its  open- 
ing its  design  of  the  social  regeneration  of  man  as  the 
household  of  God.     Each  period  in  the  eighteen  hun- 


1^0  EpocJis  ill  C/mrch  History. 

dred  years  has  seen  its  unceasing  union  with  the  ad- 
vance of  that  part  of  the  solid  body  to  which  has  been 
intrusted  the  supremacy  in  knowledge,  art,  social 
order.  The  history  of  the  Church  has  always  been 
abreast  with  the  larger  history  of  civilized  Christen- 
dom. Each  age  of  the  Church,  in  its  intellectual  and 
moral  struggles,  has  corresponded  with  the  movement 
of  the  whole.  Each,  from  the  earliest  Greek  age, 
through  the  Latin,  to  the  Reformation,  has  left  its 
lasting  impress.  There  has  been,  in  spite  of  all  the 
theological  or  ecclesiastical  strifes,  the  errors,  vices, 
and  decays,  no  evil  which  was  not  the  natural  condi- 
tion of  its  social  growth,  traceable  beyond  the  Church 
to  the  historic  growth  of  society  itself.  There  has 
been,  from  first  to  last,  on  the  other  hand,  an  essen- 
tial, abiding  law  of  development,  by  which  each  suc- 
cessive period  has  taken  the  solid  results  of  that  be- 
fore it,  and  entered  anew  on  its  larger  career.  Chris- 
tian history,  in  a  word,  from  the  beginning  till  now, 
has  been  the  record  of  a  religion  for  mankind. 

And,  therefore,  as  we  have  claimed  in  this  historic 
fact  its  essential  difference  from  all  other  religions  of 
the  world,  its  divine  character  in  its  universal  fitness 
for  humanity,  so  we  claim  that  it  cannot  pass  away 
before  its  work  is  done ;  and  as  that  work  is  coeval 
with  the  regeneration  of  the  race,  its  life  is  coeval 
with  the  race.  Such,  I  hold,  is  the  reasonable  faith  of 
the  Christian  thinker.     If  in  this  light  we  study  the 


The  Church  of  the  Future.  171 

phenomena  of  our  own  time,  we  shall  see,  instead  of 
those  symptoms  of  decay,  which  our  modern  prophets 
of  the  school  of  Buckle  or  Comte  call  the  death  of 
Christianity  and  the  birth  of  a  new  religion  of  hu- 
manity, the  very  vigor  of  its  undying  life.  This  is  the 
method  in  which  I  propose  to  study  this  larger  prob- 
lem. I  wish  to  examine  clearly  the  condition  of  Chris- 
tendom as  it  is,  the  factors  that  enter  into  the  reckon- 
ing, and  the  historic  processes  that  shall  work  out  the 
future. 

As  we  survey,  then,  our  modern  Christendom,  we 
see  in  it  a  vast,  but  broken  body,  which  bears  on  it  the 
marks  of  the  mighty  strife  not  yet  ended  since  the  Ref- 
ormation. We  see  the  Latin  Church,  still  keeping  its 
ecclesiastic  power  over  Southern  Europe,  and  even  more 
vigorous  in  its  wide-spread  colonies.  We  see  the  Greek 
Church,  everywhere  decayed  save  in  Russia,  where  it 
represents  a  national  faith,  strong  but  almost  wholly 
apart  from  the  ideas  or  activities  of  civilized  Europe. 
We  see  the  Protestant  churches,  still  divided  by  their 
various  confessions,  embracing  the  great  states  of  Nor- 
thern Europe,  save  France,  with  their  culture,  wealth, 
social  industry,  and  national  order.  And  besides  these, 
we  see  a  huge  proportion  of  men  in  all  these  lands,  with 
no  professed  faith  in  any  organized  church,  from  the 
defined  unbeliever  to  the  indifferentist.  It  is  a  Christen- 
dom far  enough  from  the  organic  unity  of  the  Apos- 
tolic time.     It  may  well  demand  the  final  application 


172  Epochs  ill  Church  History. 

of  the  historic  law  we  have  followed  out  through  the 
whole  past.  That  law  explains  it.  It  is  the  age  of 
transition.  Such  intervals  of  action  and  reaction  are 
found  all  along  in  this  great  record  ;  but  none  have 
been  so  great  or  critical  as  this.  If  we  have  studied  the 
work  of  the  Reformation  aright,  we  have  learned  its 
good  and  its  imperfection.  It  is  hardly  more  than 
three  centuries  since  that  vast  convulsion  broke  Europe 
in  twain,  changed  alike  its  social  and  religious  bal- 
ance, set  free  all  the  elemental  forces  of  a  new  civiliza- 
tion ;  and  it  cannot  reach  its  result  save  by  the  slow, 
full  working  of  these  forces.  The  Reformation  must 
lead  Europe  out  of  the  decayed  Catholic  unity  of  a 
feudal  age.  Its  very  convulsion  was  a  passage  to  the 
truer  unity.  But  it  could  not  be  completed  at  once. 
To  regard  the  Church  or  Christendom  of  the  Reforma- 
tion as  perfect,  or  as  more  than  a  beginning,  is  the  fa- 
tal falsehood  which  has  always  led  Protestantism  to 
seek  a  mistaken  unity  in  some  theological  concordat, 
and  ended  in  driving  men  back  in  their  despair  at 
such  dogmatic  patchwork  to  some  Nicene  or  Latin 
absolutism.  Protestantism  must  accept  its  conditions 
of  progress.  It  declared  its  principle  of  personal 
faith,  of  honest  criticism,  of  authority  based  not  on 
tradition  but  reasonable  law.  It  must  reach  its  right 
results  only  through  such  thorough  methods  of  science 
and  activity.  We  have"  not  yet  reached  them  ;  but  we 
have  reached  much,  and   all  that  could   be  looked  for 


TJie  Church  of  the  Future.  173 

by  sober  minds.  There  has  been  the  conflict,  the  ret- 
rograde, the  onward  movement,  the  soHd  gain  for  the 
truth  of  Christianity.  We  are  still  midway  in  the 
tide,  in  the  trough  of  this  great  wave  ;  but  we  can 
know  its  heights  and  depths ;  we  can  know  enough  to 
assure  us  of  the  issue.  Each  of  the  elements  of  this 
modern  Christendom  of  which  I  spoke,  has  to-day  its 
place  and  part  in  the  process  ;  and  our  task  must  be 
fairly  to  show  the  relation  of  each  to  the  problem  now 
before  the  Christian  period  where  our  lot  is  cast. 

Let  me  turn,  first,  to  those  older  Christian  bodies, 
which  represent  the  past  ;  not  because  the  Greek  or 
Latin  communion  stands  foremost  in  the  true  view  of 
Church  history,  but  because  they  are  first  in  the  order 
of  development.  The  law  of  Christ,  "the  last  shall  be 
first,  and  the  first  last,"  is  the  axiom  of  Church  his- 
tory. 

I  need  linger  but  briefly  on  the  Greek  Communion, 
once  the  majestic  representative  of  the  one  Nicene 
faith,  now  its  dead,  scattered  bones,  save  in  the  Rus- 
so-Greek  national  body.  It  is  not  for  any  to  predict 
its  future,  since  Russia  itself  is  hardly  yet  within  the 
circle  of  European  ideas  or  civilization.  So  far  as  this 
Church  is  concerned,  it  has  had  but  little  to  do  with 
even  the  partial  progress  of  Russia  in  culture  or  social 
institutions ;  it  has  remained  only  the  keeper  of  the 
old  Byzantine  creed  and  traditions.  Nor  is  there  any 
more  unhistoric  absurdity  than  to  regard  it  as  the  in- 


174  Epochs  in  C/mrch  History. 

heritor  of  the  Greek  Church,  save  as  a  barbarian  race 
may  build  its  houses  out  of  the  fragments  of  a  Par- 
thenon. Its  history  is  told  best  in  the  very  lacunce  of 
Stanley's  History  of  the  Eastern  Church,  where  we  drop 
suddenly  from  the  great  Nicene  age  through  the  void 
of  lifeless  centuries,  and  land  on  the  barren  flat  of  the 
Muscovite  Communion.  The  Greek  age  of  thought 
and  life  closed  with  the  decay  of  the  East.  It  had  no 
continuity  like  the  Latin  Church,  because  it  was  out  of 
the  road  of  European  civilization.  The  Russo-Greek 
Communion  has  not  contributed  an  idea  or  an  element 
of  life  to  the  historic  movement  of  Christendom.  It 
sits  in  the  patriarchal  chair,  and  holds  fast  the  Nicene 
creed,  and  chants  the  liturgy  of  Chrysostom.  Un- 
doubtedly it  has  had  epochs  of  stirring  national  inter- 
est and  great  men.  It  had  scholars  in  patristic  learn- 
ing. But  it  knows  nothing  of  Christian  thought  or 
struggle  since  the  great  schism.  Nothing  can  better 
show  its  spirit  than  the  fate  of  the  deputation  sent 
by  the  English  nonjurors  to  seek  intercommunion. 
The  message  was  received  with  grave  courtesy,  and 
refused.  The  representative  of  this  Holy  Eastern 
Body  knew  nothing  of  an  Anglican  Church,  its  Refor- 
mation, or  its  Protestant  history;  but  only  opened  his 
slumbrous  eyes,  and  lapsed  again  into  self-satisfied 
dreams  of  the  unchanged  Filioque,  And  there  is, 
I  think,  nothing  more  characteristic  of  the  unhistoric 
spirit    of   Anglo-Catholic     churchmanship,    than    its 


TJie  CJitirch  of  the  FtiUtre.  175 

repeated  attempt  since  that  ludicrous  embassy  to 
re-establish  the  unity  of  Christendom  by  some  act  of 
intercommunion  with  the  Greek  patriarch.  What 
idea  of  Church  history  have  the  scholastics  of  Oxford, 
who  ignore  the  churches  of  the  Reformation,  the 
whole  life  of  learning  and  spiritual  action  in  the  Prot- 
estant body,  to  patch  a  Nicene<f^;/(f^r^/(^/  with  the  semi- 
barbaric  East  ?  I  leave  that  Church  to  its  future.  It 
may  doubtless  have  a  place  hereafter  in  the  common 
life  of  Christendom.  If,  however,  we  m.ay  judge  by 
the  striking  facts  opened  within  the  past  few  years, 
the  vast  amount  of  sects,  many  of  the  strangest  sort, 
prove  that  the  national  Church  has  lost,  even  in  Rus- 
sia, much  of  its  religious  power.  Its  stolid  orthodoxy 
has  not  prevented  schism,  but  only  created  a  very 
ignorant  priesthood,  and  a  gross  superstition.  I  do 
not  hesitate  to  say  that  I  have  far  more  hope  of  liv- 
ing reform  in  the  Latin  than  the  Greek  Communion. 
The  Russian  Church  has  kept  its  Nicene  orthodoxy  as 
the  Ephesian  sleepers  kept  their  youth  in  the  cavern. 
We  need  not  concern  ourselves  farther  with  it  in  our 
study  of  the  question  before  the  Christendom  of  this 
later  century. 

I  pass,  then,  to  the  position  of  the  Latin  commun- 
ion at  this  day.  In  it  we  have  the  compact,  organ- 
ized, centralized  power  of  the  ancient  body.  And  we 
must,  as  Protestants,  if  we  will  be  not  only  fair  to  Rome, 
but  true  to  the  judgments  of  history,  weigh  aright  its 


176  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

truth  and  error.    We  too  often,  even  now,  are  blinded 
by  an  hereditary  prejudice  so   that   we   cannot  learn 
the  secret  of  its  real  power.     As  a  Church  system  it 
has  never  been,  since  the  Catholic  body  was  broken  at 
the   Reformation,  more  than   a  narrow,    ecclesiastical 
sect.     It  has  grown  narrower  with  each  period  since  the 
Tridentine  Council,  until  to-day  it  has  reached  the  per- 
fection of  an  absolute,  infallible  autocracy.     It  keeps 
the   structure  of  the   feudal   age.      It    keeps   the   un- 
changed  theology   of  its    scholastic   time.     It    is   the 
mortal  enemy  of  all  science,  all  education  beyond  its 
own  ecclesiastical  rule.     It  can  have  no  reconcilement 
with  the  principles  of  national  order  or  social  develop- 
ment.    But  we  are  not  to  forget,  first  of  all,  that  the 
fixed   system   of  Rome   is  by  no   means  the   Roman 
Catholic  Church.     The  old  religion  yet  holds  its  sway 
over  the  Latin  races ;  and  under  all  the  superstition 
there  is  a  vast  amount  of  intelligence  and  goodness. 
We  are  as  narrow,  indeed,  as  the  most  bigoted  Papist 
when   we   suppose   that   the   learning   and    piety  are 
chiefly  in  the  Protestant  ranks.    'That  great  commun- 
ion embodies  for  thousands  of  devout  men  the  most 
sacred  ties  of  the  past.     There  are  many  among  them, 
like  Montalembert,  who  are  keenly  alive  to  its  corrup- 
tions, but  to  whom  a  severance  from  its  body  would 
appear  only  schism.    Undoubtedly,  again,  it  has  much 
which  gives  it  a  real  power  in  its  conflict  with  Protes- 
tantism.     It  has  retained,  even  in  its  pretended  un- 


TJic  CJnircJi  of  the  Future.  lyj 

changeableness,   that  historic    character,   that    visible 
unity,  that   image  of  the   oldest    part,  which   appeals 
strongly  to  the  imaginative  mind  of  Southern  Europe. 
Protestantism  to  such  minds  is  an  atomism  of  wrangling 
sects.     There  are  elements,  too,  of  religious  influence 
which  must  not  be  undervalued,  the  love  of  Christian  art, 
and  the  aesthetic  beauty  of  worship  that  enter  largely 
into    the    popular    belief,   which    from   the   first  have 
been  thrust  aside  by  the  colder,  more  logical  spirit  of 
the  reformed  churches  as  only  superstitions.     The  the- 
ological bias  of  Protestantism  has  too  often  ended  in 
a  loveless  and  repulsive  piety.     Much,  indeed,  of  the 
religious  dogma  of  the   Roman  Church  contains  ele- 
ments of  truth  which  have  been  lost  in  the  sharp  an- 
tagonism of  a  Calvinistic  system  ;  its  ethical  side  of 
the  doctrine  of  good  works,  its  humane  notion  of  Pur- 
gatory, its  doctrine  of  sacrifice,  of  the  communion  of 
saints.     Romanism  has  created  a  fanciful  mythology, 
but  the  Protestant  creeds  have,  on  the  other  side,  so 
sternly  defined  the  faith  as  to  leave  no  room  for  the 
Christian  sentiment.     Most  of  all,  the  Roman  Church 
has  by  its  compact  organization,  its  unity  of  action,  an 
unquestioned  strength  in  the  religious  contests  that 
naturally  arise  In   such  a  period  as  our  own.     It  has 
the  strength  of  a  self-poised  power.     We  are  mistaken 
when  we  think  Rome  weaker  since  the  Reformation  ; 
it  is  stronger,  because  the  elements  of  contradiction 

were  then  thrust   out  ;  and  when   it  recovered   itself 
8* 


178  EpocJis  in  CJmrch  History. 

after  the  first  blow  it  gathered  its  forces  into  its  cita- 
del. The  old  Catholic  Church  down  to  the  Council 
of  Constance  had  its  reformers  ;  Rome  does  not  now- 
dread  them.  The  Basle  Council  dethroned  the  Pope  ; 
that  of  this  age  deifies  him.  It  has  the  centralization 
of  a  sect  with  the  seeming  Catholicity  of  the  Church. 
And  thus,  as  it  represents  a  fixed,  unshrinking  tradi- 
tion, it  always  gains  by  the  strifes  which  are  insepara- 
ble from  the  less  compact  body  of  Protestantism. 
Protestantism  must  always  admit  the  principles  of  free- 
dom. It  cannot  shut  out  critical  science  or  relicrious 
independence.  Even  an  Anglo-Catholic  revival  could 
not  restore  this  absolute  authority,  or  unprotestantize 
the  English  Church  ;  and  hence,  minds  like  Newman, 
were  compelled  by  their  logic  to  the  Roman  unity. 

In  this  view  of  the  position  of  the  Latin  Papacy  I 
have  summed  its  history.  We  need  only  look  at  the 
facts  to  verify  it.  Ever  since  the  counter  Reformation, 
so  well  described  by  Ranke,  its  growth  has  repeated 
this  principle.  It  has  thriven  by  reaction.  There 
have  been  grand  social  and  religious  movements, 
which  have  swept  over  Europe.  The  eighteenth  cen- 
tury had  its  issue  in  the  French  revolution.  That 
earthquake  swallowed  up  monarchy  and  Church  ;  and 
when  it  was  over  the  affrighted  nation  was  ready  to 
accept  the  despotism  of  Rome  in  its  fear  of  the 
atheism  and  radicalism  of  the  past.  Rome  had  gained 
at  a  stroke  all  which  had  been  wrenched  from  it  by  the 


TJic  Church  of  the  Future.  179 

Gallican  liberties.  Not  only  in  France,  but  in  Germany 
and  Italy,  there  followed  a  revival  of  the  ultramontane 
spirit.  It  had  its  literary  heralds  in  scholars  and 
artists  ;  in  a  Stolberg  and  a  Schlegel.  Chateaubriand 
charmed  the  sentiment  with  his  ^' Genie  du  Chris- 
tianisme,"  and  Montalembert  dreamed  of  the  union 
of  the  Church  with  a  new  social  order.  But  that  ideal 
Catholicity  faded  away,  and  the  antagonism  between 
Rome  and  the  spirit  of  modern  thought  became  again 
manifest.  The  newer  movements  of  science,  of  criti- 
cism, of  social  liberty  were  felt  everywhere.  Another 
age  of  scepticism  and  license  was  the  dread  of  Chris- 
tian men  in  the  Protestant  as  well  as  the  Catholic  body. 
It  has  been  followed  by  another  reaction.  All  the 
timid  conservatism,  the  blind  fear  of  progress,  sought 
relief  in  some  traditional  Christianity.  Anglicanism 
Avas  one  marked  phase  of  this  reaction.  It  sought  to 
oppose  to  the  liberal  tendencies  of  England  the 
ancient  Church,  with  the  restored  authority  of  priest- 
hood and  sacraments.  But  its  principles  swept  it 
immediately  into  the  type  of  Roman  unity.  It  was  the 
Roman  Comm.union  which  alone  held  and  holds  the 
consistent  position.  The  syllabus  was  the  clear 
pronunciamento  of  its  rule  of  faith.  It  declares  utter 
war  against  all  freedom  in  the  examination  of  every 
question,  in  science,  history,  criticism,  touching  its 
fixed  dogma.  This  is  its  creed.  It  cannot  be  mistaken; 
it  declares  again  its  supremxacy  over  all  national  laws, 


I  So  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

constitutions,  and  powers  in  regard  to  the  relation  of  the 
Church  to  the  State.  This  is  its  law.  Its  power  may 
be  resisted  or  controlled,  but  its  claim  is  simply  this. 
Its  history  to-day  has  been  only  the  carrying  out  of 
this  absolute  claim.  There  have  been  within  our 
generation  two  great  councils  which  reveal  its  whole 
character.  I  shall  only  touch  the  former  to  say,  that 
it  shows  us  two  weighty  facts.  The  Roman  Church 
in  its  decree  of  the  immaculate  conception  has  closed 
the  circle  of  Latin  theology  by  substituting  a  myth,  as 
the  central  truth  of  Christianity,  instead  of  the  Catho- 
lic faith  of  God  in  Christ.  Its  religion  is  now  a  myth- 
ology. But  I  am  far  more  concerned  with  its  later 
council.  It  has  decreed  the  infallibility  of  the  Pontiff. 
I  do  not  care  to  discuss  here  the  doctrinal  falsehood  of 
this  decree  ;  it  is  only  as  it  bears  on  the  position  of  the 
Church  that  I  regard  it.  It  is  the  striking  feature  of 
the  case,  that  it  was  not  the  source  of  any  theological 
debates  in  the  great  council ;  the  truth  of  it  was  as- 
sumed as  the  implicit  belief  of  all  the  orthodox  doc- 
tors, and  the  only  question  was  whether  it  should  be 
explicitly  affirmed.  This  fact  leads  at  once  to  my  con- 
clusion. It  has  been  the  argument  of  most  Protestant 
divines,  and  by  Old  Catholics  like  Dorner,  that  the 
claim  of  infallibility  was  never  before  made  for  the 
Pontiff,  but  only  ff)r  the  Church  as  embodied  in  the 
QEcumenical  Council.  Be  it  so.  It  simply  proves 
that,  as   Newman   has   keenly  reasoned,   the    Roman 


TJie  Church  of  the  Future.  i8i 

Church  has  been  forced  to  perfect  its  own  logic.  An 
infallible  body  must  have  an  infallible  head.  It  was 
not  the  logic  of  the  dialectician,  but  what  has  been 
well  called  the  logic  of  history,  that  compelled  this 
dogma.  The  Catholic  Church  of  the  tenth  or  twelfth 
century  could  hold  much  undefined  opinion,  nay,  con- 
tradiction in  its  bosom  ;  could  have  Pope  and  anti- 
Pope.  But  the  absolutism  of  the  modern  Church  must 
push  its  principles  to  the  last  result.  This  was  un- 
questionably the  spirit  of  the  council.  Its  aim  was  to 
maintain  the  changeless  unity  of  faith  and  Church 
order.  It  could  not  do  it  save  by  such  a  dogma. 
There  was  no  more  absurdity  in  declaring  a  divine 
infallibility  in  the  Pontiff  than  in  holding  the  claims 
of  the  Syllabus ;  it  was  a  sublime  consistency.  And 
there  can  be  no  doubt,  absurd  as  the  dogma  is  to 
reason,  that  it  was  this  "  credo  quia  impossibile,"  which 
made  it  triumphant  over  not  only  the  assembled 
Bishops  and  Doctors,  but  Catholic  Christendom.  In 
a  very  telling  essay  shortly  after,  an  eminent  writer, 
M,  Dalgairns,  maintained  as  the  one  convincing  argu- 
ment, that  in  a  age  where  absolute  freedom  was  lead- 
ing men  to  unbelief,  the  only  bulwark  of  Catholic 
faith  is  an  infallibility  embodied  in  the  visible  head  of 
Christendom.  Such  is  miy  view  of  the  position  of 
the  Roman  Church.  It  is  the  acceptance  of  its  real 
place  and  work.  It  is  the  ultimate  appeal  to  an 
authority  above  reason.    It  claims  no  more  than  many 


i82  Epochs  in  Church  History, 

Protestant  dogmatists  have  done,  than  Anglo-Cath- 
olic  doctors  do,  but  It  claims  it  with  undisguised 
voice. 

And  in  this  view  of  the  position  of  Rome,  we  can 
know  its  whole  relation  to  the  problem  of  modern 
Christianity.  We  know  its  real  power.  We  need 
not  deceive  ourselves  with  the  Protestant  delusion 
that  it  is  soon  to  fade  away.  It  will  last  so  long  as 
Protestantism  remains  the  same  divided  system  of 
rival  theologies,  without  any  real  unity  in  its  view  of 
science  or  history.  As  such  an  ecclesiastical  party, 
strong  by  the  defects  of  others,  it  is  doubtless  of  vast 
influence.  Its  growth  in  Protestant  countries  is  thus 
its  chief  feature.  In  Germany,  the  home  of  Luther 
and  the  Reformation,  It  Is  able  to  wield  a  concentrated 
political  might.  In  England  it  has  already  fixed  its 
archieplscopal  seat,  and  hopes  to  be  again  the  master. 
In  America,  it  has  a  colonial  power  greater  than  its 
European  hierarchy.  But  this  growth  ought  not  to 
alarm  any  thinking  mind  ;  for  it  is  clear  that  it  is  due 
to  its  organized  activity,  not  to  its  inherent  and  last- 
ing progress.  If  v/e  believe  in  the  reality  of  such  a. 
progress  of  Christianity,  we  shall  never  mistake  the 
issue  of  the  conflict.  If  we  would  know  what  Ro- 
manism Is,  we  have  only  to  turn  from  this  external 
view  to  Its  internal  condition.  It  has  reached  the 
point.  In  all  Latin  countries,  where  it  is  now  power- 
less over  the  Intellectual  and  social  movement.     Italy 


The  Clmrch  of  the  Future.  183 

has  dethroned  it  from  its  temporal  seat.  The  last 
dream  of  a  union  of  the  Pontificate  with  national  life 
was  dispelled  by  Pius  IX.  In  the  day  of  Manzoni 
and  Gioberti,  Italian  scholars  were  still  sincerely 
Catholic.  The  present  generation  has  largely  re- 
nounced that  faith,  and  too  often  been  driven  into 
the  denial  of  Christianity.  In  Southern  Germany 
and  Austria  the  men  of  science  and  letters  are  chiefly 
on  the  side  of  liberalism.  The  government  retains  a 
traditional  union  with  the  Church  ;  but  one  by  one 
the  ultramontane  prerogatives  have  been  shorn  away. 
Education,  miarriage,  right  of  inheritance,  exclusive 
rights  of  worship,  are  gone,  even  in  the  empire  of 
Metternich.  The  cultured  classes  are  divorced  from 
the  Church.  There  is  no  religious  war,  as  in  the 
past.  Modern  thinkers  do  not  march  out  in  a  body 
with  the  sound  of  the  trumpet.  The  Church  is  simply 
left  to  its  traditions  and  anathemas.  Indeed,  the 
growth  of  unbelief  in  Catholic  countries  is  a  phenom- 
enon which  deserves  our  study.  It  is  not,  as  in 
Protestant  countries,  an  earnest  conflict  of  ideas,  a 
recognition  even  by  unbelievers  of  a  partial  truth  in 
Christianity,  but  it  is  a  scornful  indifference,  an  utter 
dismissal  of  Christianity,  as  outside  the  sphere  of 
reasonable  thought.  We  are  wont  to  talk  of  the 
modern  unbelief  as  the  peculiar  growth  of  Protestant- 
ism. Let  us  know  that  its  worst  type  has  been,  and 
is,  the  natural  child  of  the  Roman  tradition  ;  and  from 


1 84  Epochs  ill  C/rarch  Histoiy. 

Voltaire  to  our  day  it  has  grown  until  there  is  no 
reconciliation.  Rome  has  taught  minds  like  Renan 
to  identify  the  Christian  faith  with  its  system  of  my- 
thology and  despotism,  and  intellectual  freedom  has 
ended  in  entire  denial. 

But,  if  this  shows  the  inner  decay  of  the  Church,  it 
is  to  be  found  again  in  another  striking  fact  of  our 
time.  The  reverence  for  the  Catholic  faith  and  wor- 
ship has  thus  far  kept  a  vast  body  of  sincere  believers 
v/ithin  the  Roman  fold.  The  intellectual  and  social 
fetters  have  not  broken  their  faith  in  some  future  re- 
form. But  now  its  hold  on  this  class  has  been  rudely 
broken.  I  touch  here  on  the  Old  Catholic  schism.  It 
is  not  my  design,  in  this  brief  sketch,  to  do  more  than 
show  its  relation  to  the  future  of  the  Latin  body. 
Indeed,  I  do  not  think  we  can  thus  far  know  enough 
of  its  development,  to  pronounce  on  the  issues  of  the 
movement.  It  was  a  revolt  which  began  rather  with 
scholars  like  Dollinger,  and  had  not  its  roots  so  wide- 
spread in  the  character  of  the  South  German  people, 
or  the  social  relations  of  the  time,  as  the  Protestant 
Reformation.  It  has  been  marked  by  a  cautious 
effort  to  keep  the  Catholic  traditions,  and  build  itself, 
like  the  Church  of  England,  on  the  Episcopate  and 
historic  Creed.  If  it  can  do  this  with  a  true  recogni- 
tion of  Protestant  principles,  taking  heed  of  its  de- 
fects, it  will  take  a  grand  step.  But  if  it  seek  the  via 
media  of  the  Anglo-Catholic  school,  it  will  end,  as  that 


TJie  CJmrch  of  the  Future.  185 

will,  in  a  fruitless  theory.  Nothing  can  be  more  exact 
than  the  comparison  by  Stanley,  in  illustration  of  the 
attempt  at  the  Roman  conference  by  English  divines  to 
make  a  concordat  with  the  Old  Catholic  leaders.  They 
Avere,  he  said,  like  the.  two  factions,  one  ascending  and 
the  other  going  down  the  mountain,  but  meeting  for 
a  half  hour  at  the  half-way  inn.  The  Anglo-Catholic 
would  go  back  from  the  Protestant  life  to  the  dead 
Nicene  past.  The  Old  Catholic  must  go  forward.  Both 
w^ant  a  better  unity  than  Rome  ;  both  want  the  historic 
elements  which  Protestantism  has  not  kept.  But  they 
are  not  to  be  found  in  any  isolated  via  media.  It  is  yet 
to  be  seen  in  what  Old  Catholicism  shall  end.  The 
scholastic  debates  at  Rome  on  the  Filioque,  the  effort 
at  intercommunion  with  the  Greek  Patriarchate,  were 
not  signs  of  a  true  life.  But  so  far  as  the  Latin  body 
is  concerned,  it  is  the  most  significant  of  historic 
changes.  It  proves  that  the  disease  has  reached  the 
vitals.  Ultramontanism  has  taken  its  last  step,  its 
changeless  attitude  in  the  decree  of  infallibility;  and 
the  first  result  has  been  to  show  that  a  large  part,  the 
wisest  and  devoutest,  no  longer  will  accept  its  des- 
potism.. No  such  movement  can  go  back.  It  is  the 
beginning  of  the  end.  We  cannot  know  what  the 
next  step  may  be,  although  it  seems  most  likel}^  that 
it  will  result  in  the  gradual  renunciation  of  the  Papacy 
as  supreme,  and  the  formation  of  the  independent, 
national,  Catholic  body  in  each  State  where  the  move- 


1 86  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

ment  has  begun.     Whatever  the  process,  the  disinte- 
gration of  Roman  absolutism  is  begun. 

And  thus  we  can  pass  to  the  position  of  Protestant 
Christendom.  My  judgment  will,  of  course,  be  the 
result  of  my  view  of  its  histori.c  principles.  Its  long 
strife,  since  the  Reformation,  seems,  alike  to  the  Ro- 
manist, the  Anglo-Catholic,  and  the  unbeliever  in  any 
positive  revelation,  the  proof  that  it  is  hastening  to 
decay.  Neither  sees  any  alternative  save  in  the  tradi- 
tional Church  or  the  death  of  Christianity.  I  have 
claimed  that  the  Protestant  Reformation  was  not 
merely  the  negation  of  the  Roman  hierarchy,  but  the 
positive  declaration  of  faith  in  the  living  Christ.  It 
rejected  the  principle  of  Roman  tradition,  and  ac- 
cepted that  of  true  scientific  inquiry.  It  rejected 
ecclesiastical  despotism,  and  accepted  the  law  of  his- 
toric growth.  But  in  so  doing  it  was  led  by  the  nat- 
ural conditions  of  such  a  movement  to  a  partial  and 
often  erroneous  development.  It  threw  off  the  Roman 
tradition,  but  it  substituted  for  it  another  scholasti- 
cism, and  thus  ended  in  rival  theologies  instead  of  the 
one  simple  truth.  There  was  thus  necessary  a  long, 
slow  battle  within  its  own  household.  The  contest 
with  Rome  for  life  or  death  ended  with  the  century 
after  the  Reformation  ;  it  was  followed  by  another  of 
warring  creeds  and  sects.  But  with  the  eighteenth 
century  there  awoke  the  deeper  struggle.  It  came  out 
of  the  theological  controversies  which  had  made  the 


The  Church  of  the  Future,  187 

revelation  of  Christ  a  speculative  mystery.  The  deism 
of  the  century  was  a  natural  result  of  the  newly  awak- 
ened philosophic  thought  against  the  formal  systems 
of  the  Church.  It  was  gross,  one-sided,  superficial ; 
but  it  was  necessary  to  the  awakening  of  a  truer 
Christian  study.  That  study  has  from  that  day  to  this 
led  to  the  more  thorough  criticism  of  the  nature  and 
purpose  of  revelation.  It  has  been  called  out  by  each 
successive  phase  of  speculative  or  critical  opinion 
which  has  in  turn  asked  the  meaning  of  a  supernatural 
Christianity  ;  by  the  rationalism  of  Kant,  the  pantheism 
of  Strauss,  and  the  latest  historic  criticism  of  Baur. 
We  are  nov/  In  the  last  stage  of  the  battle.  What  is 
the  result  ?  I  do  not  fear  to  say  a  stronger  and  more 
assured  belief.  Each  honest  investigation  has  ended 
in  placing  the  essential  facts  of  revelation  on  stronger 
groun'd.  Criticism  has  led  to  the  surrender  of  much 
which  was  once  held  part  of  the  divine  record  ;  but  It 
has  given  far  more  than  it  has  taken  away.  All  our 
richest  knowledge  of  the  wisdom  and  literature  of  the 
East,  of  the  sublime  truth  of  the  Old  Testament,  of 
the  character  of  the  New,  its  structure  and  harmony, 
is  the  result  of  criticism.  Rationalism  has  compelled 
Christian  science  to  follow  the  strict  method  of  in- 
quiry. It  has  shown  the  unscientific  character  of  the 
theological  law  of  interpretation,  and  in  so  doing  it 
has  proved  the  insufiliciency  of  the  theory  of  an  infal- 
libly Inspired  Bible.     To  many  this  seems  the  death 


1 88  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

of  Christian  truth.  But  it  is  the  very  contrary.  It 
was  the  scholastic  age  of  the  Reformation  which  reared 
this  theory  into  its  prominence,  just  as  the  Roman 
scholasticism  reared  the  theory  of  an  infallible,  dog- 
matic Church,  and  each  was  only  the  source  of  unbe- 
lief. The  Bible  became  the  text-book  of  theological 
wrangles,  and  the  contending  sects  of  Luther  or  Calvin 
or  Grotius  forced  it  out  of  its  real  meaning.  A  de- 
structive criticism  has  found  its  strongest  point  of 
attack  in  this  mistaken  view  of  Scripture  ;  it  has  be- 
lieved it  overturned  Christianity  in  finding  errors  in  the 
cosmogony  of  Moses,  or  the  books  of  the  Pentateuch. 
But  it  has  only  taught  the  Christian  to  study  more 
deeply  the  principles  of  revelation.  It  has  taught  us 
to  study  the  structure  of  the  Bible,  to  distinguish  be- 
tween its  divine  parts  and  its  secondary  historic  form. 
We  have  far  less  reason  to  fear  the  assaults  of  unbelief 
to-day  than  before.  We  ought  rather  to  be  grateful 
that  the  strength  of  revelation  has  been  proved  in  the 
battle  with  each  theory  which  would  destroy  it.  If 
the  Protestant  Church  has  learned  that  its  power  lies 
not  in  the  crude  systems  of  the  past  it  need  not  fear 
science. 

But  this  view  opens  at  once  the  further  question  as 
to  the  large  body  of  men  in  our  day  who  stand  apart 
from  all  union  with  the  organized  Christian  Church. 
I  do  not  doubt  the  growing  number.  I  do  not  under- 
rate the  error  or  the  evil.  It  is  its  character  we  should 


The  Church  of  the  Future,  189 

study.  There  have  been  always  and  must  be  a  certain 
number  of  speculative  thinkers  and  of  practical  indif- 
ferentists.  It  cannot  be  otherwise.  But  they  are  above 
all  the  accompaniment  of  an  age  of  freedom  in  religious 
thought,  and  of  much  confusion.  It  is  a  serious  ques- 
tion how  much  larger  the  number  is  than  in  an  age 
when  heresy  was  refuted  by  the  stake,  as  with  Giordano 
Bruno,  or  when  so  lately  as  in  the  English  Church  of 
the  last  century  TIndal  was  imprisoned  for  deism. 
We  have  already  seen  In  the  Roman  Church  to-day 
that  there  is  probably  as  great  a  proportion  of  silent 
unbelievers,  baptized  and  confirmed  yet  utterly  creed- 
less,  as  in  Protestant  lands.  But  it  is  not  a  question 
to  me,  after  all,  whether  this  silent  unbelief  or  the  open 
conflict  be  the  truer  condition  of  Christianity.  It  Is 
in  this  light  I  approach  this  phenomenon  of  our  times. 
It  Is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  greater  danger  than  it 
really  Is.  It  is  simply  the  condition  of  our  imperfect 
growth.  We  have  In  every  great  epoch  of  contest  be- 
tween Christianity  and  unbelief  two  factors,  the  one- 
sided excess  of  speculative  thought,  and  the  unreason- 
able authority  of  dogma.  We  cannot  escape  that  col- 
lision. We  cannot  reach  any  lasting  triumph  save  by 
the  process  of  sounder  learning.  The  revolt  of  the 
rationalizing  schools  of  the  middle  ages  was  caused  by 
the  formal  realism  of  the  schools.  English  deism  was 
the  gross  protest  of  TIndal  and  Chubb  against  the 
rigid  theology;  but  it  created   Butler  and  Tillotson. 


190  Epochs  in  Church  History, 

German  transcendentalism  had  its  great  circle  of 
thinkers  till  it  faded  into  vague  pantheism,  but  it 
created  the  spiritual  minds  which  drew  Christian  the- 
ology out  of  its  scholastic  husk.  Modern  unbelief  is 
the  reaction  against  this  ideal  excess  ;  it  has  led  on 
one  side  to  a  cold,  keen,  analytic  criticism,  on  another 
to  a  bald  materialism.  Yet,  instead  of  seeing  in  it  an 
unmixed  peril,  I  count  it  on  one  side  a  benefit.  I 
have  shown  already  what  Christian  truth  has  gained 
from  criticism.  But  I  go  further  yet.  It  is  to  my 
view  the  best  feature  of  the  conflict  that  it  is  no 
longer,  as  in  the  day  of  Butler  or  Coleridge,  a  vague, 
spiritual  deism  or  pantheism  which  attacks  revelation. 
It  is  the  honest  confession  of  Mill  and  Spencer  that 
there  is  no  standing  ground  between  agnosticism  and 
a  positive  Christianity.  We  need  not  fear  in  such  a 
battle.  We  have  gained  our  best  strength  when  we 
can  know  that  the  religion  of  Christ  is  sustained  by 
the  most  sacred  beliefs  of  the  moral  nature.  It  will 
teach  us  more  and  more  that  revelation  is  one  with 
that  sober  science  which  is  as  sure  to  refute  the  material- 
ism of  to-day  as  it  has  each  speculative  theory  of  the 
past.  If  in  this  light  we  regard  the  feature  of  modern 
unbelief,  we  shall  see  in  it  nothing  but  the  natural 
phase  of  this  age  of  transition.  The  scientific  positiv- 
ist  is  himself  a  one-sided  negation.  It  is  against  the 
theological  abstractions  he  mistakes  for  Christianity 
that  he  opposes  his  hard  realism.     It  is  not  strange 


The  ChurcJi  of  the  FiUtire.  191 

to-day,  as  in  the  past,  that  there  should  be  many  un- 
settled minds,  some  earnest,  more  half  cultured,  who 
are  affected  by  the  tone  of  this  unbelief.  There  is  a 
fashion  to-day  of  talking  of  a  new  evangel,  a  nobler 
religion  of  humanity.  But  the  religion  of  Christ  has 
seen  many  such  fashions  come  and  go.  I  would  advise 
these  prophets  of  a  new  religion,  as  well  as  the  fearful 
defenders  of  the  faith,  to  read  Dean  Swift's  ''  Considera- 
tions on  the  inconveniences  of  the  plan  for  the  aboli- 
tion of  Christianity."  We  are-  merely  unbelievers 
ourselves  if  we  have  not  trust  enough  in  it  to  leave 
the  result  to  Christian  learning  and  "  the  next  gener- 
ation." 

If,  then,  I  have  given  you  the  fair  summary  of  Chris- 
tendom as  it  is,  we  can  pass  to  our  conclusion.  This  is 
the  age  of  transition.  It  looks  forward,  therefore,  to 
an  age  of  reconcilement.  The  harmony  of  Christian 
liistory  can  only  be  from  the  solution  of  discords ;  its 
confusion  is  the  step  to  the  order.  And  it  is  as  v/e 
study  this  result  in  the  same  defined  lines  of  thought, 
that  we  shall  find  this  anticipation  of  the  future  to  be 
no  vague  dream,  but  a  clear  forecast.  I  shall  look  at 
this  next  age  of  Christianity  in  its  two  directions,  as 
the  reconcilement  of  science  with  religious  faith,  and 
of  the  social  life  of  our  times  with  the  Church.  Both 
directions  meet  in  the  result,  as  in  the  beginning. 
Christianity  was  a  truth  embodied  in  a  social  fact ;  its 
completeness  w^ill  only  be  as  it  becomes  again  a  social 


192  EpocJis  in   CJnn'ch  History. 

fact,  a  life  greater  than  a  scientific  theology.  But  it 
must  first  fulfil  its  need  of  educating  the  race.  And 
thus  we  can  understand  the  result  of  this  period  in  the 
ripe  knowledge  of  Christian  truth.  All  the  stages  of 
this  doctrinal  development  in  the  Church  have,  one  by 
one,  been  the  exposition  of  the  central  fact  of  God  in 
Christ,  and  Christ  in  us,  as  that  fact  concerns  the  so- 
cial relations  of  human  thought.  Theology,  anthro- 
pology, soteriology,  God  in  Christ,  the  condition  of 
man,  the  gift  of  redemption,  these  have  been  the  cen- 
tres of  doctrinal  inquiry.  Each  has  had  its  unfolding 
in  connection  with  the  intellectual  character  of  its  ag^e. 
Each  entire  period  of  the  Church  has  made  its  contri- 
bution. Protestantism  has  been  the  latest  and  ripest 
in  this  task  of  education.  It  has  in  its  doctrine  of  the 
personal  Christ  and  personal  faith  opened  the  road  of 
free  inquiry.  It  has  wrought  with  the  new  spirit  of 
critical  science,  which  leads  modern  thought.  It  has 
demolished  the  dogmatic  method  of  the  Latin  the- 
ology. But  in  this  critical  inquiry  it  has  itself  reached 
the  point  where  its  own  analysis  is  exhausted,  where 
its  conflicting  creeds  must  lead  either  to  the  denial  of 
all  positive  revealed  truth,  or  to  the  finding  of  substan- 
tial, abiding  ground.  This  is  already  the  result  it  has 
half  gained.  Critical  study  has  brought  it,  step  by 
step,  from  theological  systems  to  the  Biblical  sources ; 
it  has  next  brought  it  from  the  old  theological  mode 
of  interpreting  Scripture  to   the  living  truth  it  con- 


The   Church  of  the  Future,  193 

tains.  As  all  science  at  last  ends  in  the  grasp  of  the 
simplest  laws,  as  "  depth  of  philosophy  bringeth  us 
back  to  religion,"  so  the  conflicts  of  criticism  are 
bringing  us  back  to  the  knowledge  of  Christian  truth 
as  one  in  the  divine  person  of  Christ,  and  his  historic, 
living  Gospel.  Theology  has  not  faded  away.  It  is  a 
nobler  study  than  before.  But  the  age  of  a  Latin  or 
a  Protestant  scholasticism  is  passing.  It  is  neither  to 
a  Nicene  Council  nor  a  Synod  of  Augsburg  or  Dort 
we  look  for  a  dogmatic  decision.  It  is  a  return  by  the 
method  of  Christian  learning,  by  impartial  study  of 
history,  to  the  child-like,  simple,  positive  faith,  that 
could  utter  itself  in  the  Apostles'  Creed.  We  are 
learning  that  all  the  sound  doctrines  of  Incarnation, 
Atonement,  Grace,  Church  and  Sacrament,  are  one  in 
the  living  truth  of  Christ.  We  are  learning  the  rela- 
tion of  the  one  essential  truth  to  its  theological  expo- 
sitions. The  period  of  theological  strife  and  critical 
strife  is  passing  into  the  ethical  unity.  All  our  doc- 
trinal ideas  and  systems  are  now  looked  at  as  they 
make  Christianity  a  life.  This,  I  affirm,  is  the  process 
of  our  time.  I  do  not  say,  or  hope,  that  it  is  more 
than  partially  wrought  out.  We  have  and  shall  have 
our  sincere  minds,  who  see  in  all  this  only  a  lapse  of 
faith,  and  will  stem  the  tide  of  what  they  call  license, 
eclecticism,  rationalism,  by  a  new  Protestant  decree, 
or  by  Anglo-Catholic  dogmatic  unity.  But  if  I  have 
reasoned  aright,  their  effort  is  the  fruit  of  unwise  fear, 
9 


194  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

not  of  true  study.  It  is  the  positive  truth,  which  the 
N'icene  decrees  only  affirm,  and  the  positive  results  of 
Protestant  thought,  which  are  to  meet  in  this  better 
unity. 

Yet  this  result  extends  beyond  the  unity  of  Chris- 
tian churches  to  the  larger  problem  of  science  and 
faith.  It  is  when  the  Church  has  thus  learned  the 
difference  between,  or  rather  the  substantial  agree- 
ment of  its  creeds  in  a  deeper  view  of  revelation,  that 
its  chief  source  of  contest  will  be  ended.  The  wrong 
conception  of  the  Scripture  has  been  the  reason  why 
questions  of  criticism  and  science  have  been  made 
questions  of  Christian  belief.  True  science  will  have 
no  controversy  with  the  divine  and  spiritual  facts  of 
Hebrew  or  Gospel  history.  We  are  learning  that  it  is 
not  a  matter  merely  of  Scripture  and  geology,  but  of 
our  own  Christianity  whether  we  identify  the  living 
truth  of  Christ  with  the  theories  of  the  earth's  struct- 
ure, and  the  obscure  riddles  of  man's  pre -historic 
beginnings.  That  we  have  reached  this  reconciliation 
I  by  no  means  affirm.  But  all  criticism  tends  toward 
it.  And  it  will  be  found  again,  that  when  the  Chris- 
tian science  of  the  time  has  reached  this,  the  further 
conflict  between  it  and  the  materialism  of  the  age 
will  fast  vanish. 

And  thus  I  pass  to  the  further  and  closing  view  of 
the  result  of  the  time  in  the  relation  of  the  Church  as 
an  organized  body  to  the  life  of  Christendom.    It  is  in 


The  Church  of  the  Future.  195 

the  fulfilling  of  the  same  law.  As  the  past  stages  of  its 
theological  and  critical  development  have  at  length 
brought  it  to  the  living  unity  of  truth,  so  its  visible 
development  has  been  a  progress  toward  its  true  end 
as  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  Church  is  the  germ. of 
the  greater  fellowship  of  regenerated  man.  Its 
history  has  been  the  growth  toward  this  end.  It  has 
passed  through  its  first  period  of  Greek  schooling, 
and,  yet  further,  its  necessary  discipline  of  forward 
youth  under  the  yoke  of  the  Latin  law.  But  it 
needed  that  the  outward  yoke  should  with  its  ripe 
manhood  become  the  self-governed  law.  It  is  thus 
that  the  Protestant  freedom,  which  broke  the  childish 
servitude,  should  after  its  season  of  strife  find  its  nobler 
unity.  Such  is  the  process  we  see  to-day.  We  see 
the  many  divisions  of  modern  Christendom.  What 
is  this  solution  ?  It  is  not  in  any  return  to  the 
Catholicity  of  the  Latin  type.  That  Catholicity,  as 
we  see,  belongs  to  the  feudal  age,  and  modern  Rome 
in  its  claim  simply  assumes  an  absolutism  utterly  at 
war  with  religious  or  social  freedom.  Nothing  is 
more  absurd  than  the  Eirenicon  of  a  Pusey,  who  in 
one  breath  shows  that  the  religion  of  the  Roman 
Church  is  Mariolatry,  and  in  the  next  hopes  for  some 
concordat  on  the  basis  of  Trent,  out  of  which  this 
idolatry  has  been  developed.  It  cannot  be  in  the 
Anglo-Catholic  abstraction  of  a  Nicene  unity.  The 
Church  cannot  ignore  the  real  work  which  has  been 


196  Epochs  in  C/mrch  Histojy. 

done  by  the  centuries  since  the  Reformation.  Its 
unity  must  come  out  of  the  present  life,  as  it  em- 
bodies the  gathered  experience  of  the  past. 

This  is  the  character  of  the  change  going  forward 
in  Christendom.  It  is  to  come,  as  in  the  progress  of 
doctrinal  knowledge,  by  the  clearer  understanding  of 
the  original  structure  of  the  Church  and  its  right  rela- 
tion to  history.  The  one-sided  Protestant  idea,  which 
grew  out  of  its  severance  from  the  corrupt  past,  that 
the  Church  of  the  New  Testament  was  meant  to  be  a 
perfect  system  of  theology  and  polity,  is  disappearing 
before  the  criticism  of  to-day.  It  is  no  longer  possible 
for  the  Anglican  to  find  his  exact  model  of  Epis- 
copacy, the  Presbyterian  or  Independent  his  parity  or 
democracy,  the  Baptist  his  absolute  rule  of  immer- 
sion. It  is  seen  that  the  Church  of  the  Apostolic  age 
was  a  living  germ,  not  a  full-grown  kingdom  of  God. 
Such  a  view  already  is  leading  to  a  juster  conception 
of  history.  There  is  far  less  of  the  tendency  to  narrow 
the  great  body  into  one  confession  or  polity.  It  is 
felt  that  each  has  had  a  part  in  the  manifold  working 
out  of  the  historic  life  of  the  whole.  It  is  seen  that 
there  must  be  a  recognition  of  a  Catholic  ground, 
which  shall  unite  in  the  substantial  features  of  faith 
and  order,  and  leave  room  for  the  variety  that  is  the 
condition  of  historic  growth.  Vague  and  crude  as 
such  movements  are,  they  are  the  signs  of  the  common 
aim.      No    Evangelical   alliance    on    one   side    repre- 


TJie  CJliltcJi  of  the  FiUtirc.  197 

sents  them  ;  though  imperfect  as  its  basis  is,  its  spirit  is 
noble.  Anglicanism  has  its  solid  kernel  of  truth  in 
the  demand  for  unity  above  all  special  Protestant 
confessions;  it  only  fails  because  it  identifies  the 
Church  with  a  divinely  ordered  Episcopate.  It  is  far 
as  yet  from  a  harmonious  solution.  But  the  converg- 
ing lines  will  find  it.  Protestantism  will  not  go  back 
to  the  mediaeval  or  Nicene  pattern  ;  but  it  will  inte- 
grate itself;  it  will  assimilate  what  is  true  or  beautiful  in 
the  worship,  the  art,  the  order  of  the  past ;  it  will  recog- 
nize the  worth  of  that  historic  unity  it  has  forgotten. 
And,  on  the  other  side,  all  point  to  the  hope  that  the 
sound  study  of  Scripture  and  history  is  leading  the 
scholars  of  the  Anglican  Communion  to  the  position 
of  their  own 'reformers,  to  a  comprehensive  view  of  one 
essential  unity  as  a  body.  Such,  I  say,  are  the  signs. 
It  is  not  for  me  to  enter  into  any  reckoning  of  what 
organic  form  this  unity  will  bring.  Certainly  I  have  no 
idea  that  it  will  end  in  any  uniformity.  I  dream  of  no 
oecumenical  council  in  this  age ;  of  no  settlement  on 
the  basis  of  an  Episcopate  or  a  Prayer  Book.  It  is  not 
to  be  wished  that  there  should  be  any  less  variety  in 
this  vast  Christendom,  until  the  Church  has  reached 
this  real   unity. 

And  to  complete  my  sketch,  as  the  spirit  of 
sect  dies,  and  the  great  portions  of  the  body  are 
united  in  this  true  organism  of  life,  the  Church  will 
enter  on   that    largest  work   of  social    action,  which 


198      .  EpocJis  in  Church  History. 

alone  shall  fulfil  its  mission  for  the  time  wherein  our 
lot  is  cast.  For  it  is  no  longer  the  age  of  theological 
or  ecclesiastical  issues.  It  is  in  the  historic  provi- 
dence of  God  the  time,  when,  as  never  before,  the 
Christian  Church  is  needed  in  its  fullest  strength  to 
meet  the  demands  of  a  vast  and  confused  civilization. 
The  day^is  past  when  men  of  earnest  thought  are 
busied  chiefly  with  the  questions  of  Church  polity. 
It  is  what  the  Gospel  and  Kingdom  of  Christ  can  do 
for  the  solution  of  the  growing  riddles  of  society,  the 
inequality  of  caste,  the  purifying  of  the  deep  corrup- 
tions of  our  time,  the  overgrown  luxury,  the  intricate 
'diseases,  physical  and  moral,  the  curse  of  serfdom  and 
war,  the  promotion  of  peace,  of  international  union. 
We  are  not  to  ignore  these  problems.  It  is  because  the 
Church  of  Christ  has  too  often  ignored  them,  and  in 
the  pretence  that  these  are  secular  matters  has  busied 
herself  with  her  strifes  of  creed  and  ritual,  that  the  larger 
part  of  modern  unbelievers  has  left  her  communion 
and  sought  elsewhere  for  the  religion  of  humanity. 
It  is  the  real  Kingdom  of  God  which  the  world  seeks 
to-day.  Its  bold  thinkers,  like  St.  Simon  and  Comte, 
have  not  found  it  in  the  ecclesiastical  body  which 
claimed  its  right,  and  have  renounced  it  for  another. 
But,  if  it  be  the  Kingdom  of  Christ,  it  is  to  prove  its 
origin  to-day  in  the  fulfilment  of  its  Master's  design. 


RICHARD  HOOKER. 

There  is  no  one  name  among  the  early  divines  of  the 
English  Church  which  would  be  chosen  as  the  best 
type  of  its  faith,  its  historic  order,  or  its  ripe  learning, 
before  that  of  Hooker.  None  has  been  more  often 
claimed  as  the  defender  of  its  principles.  None  has 
had  more  lavish  praise  from  those  who  would  shelter 
their  Church  theories  behind  the  bulwarks  of  his  fame. 
And  yet,  because  he  was  in  the  truest  sense  the  repre- 
sentative of  his  age,  I  do  not  fear  to  say  that  there 
is  hardly  one  who  has  been  less  understood.  It  was 
with  the  second  sight  of  genius,  that  Bacon  be- 
queathed his  name  to  the  next  age ;  yet  it  would  be 
nearer  the  truth  if  we  say  that  in  the  greatest  exam- 
ples of  intellectual  life  we  need  several  generations  to 
read  them.  We  acknowledge  this  law  at  once  in  the 
realm  of  science,  where  the  intuitions  of  a  Kepler 
must  wait  the  slow  test  of  a  half  century.  Yet  it  is 
as  true  in  letters  and  art.  Even  Shakespeare  has  only 
'won  his  rank  as  sovereign  of  the  modern  drama  since 
the  criticism  of  Germany  has  taught  England  to  read 
him.  We  are  indebted  to  Dean  Stanley  for  the  fact 
that  the  name  of  Milton  is  not  mentioned  by  Clar- 


200  EpocJis  in  CJiitrch  History, 

endon.  But  it  is  truest  of  all,  although  from  another 
cause,  with  the  thinkers  who  have  been  thrown  by 
good  or  evil  hap  into  the  strifes  of  their  own  time, 
yet  by.  the  very  grandeur  of  their  thoughts  have 
"dwelt  apart/'  alike  misunderstood  by  the  wrangling 
parties  in  Church  or  State.  History  measures  them 
for  a  while  by  its  foot  rule,  and  calls  them  High 
Church  or  Evangelical,  Tory  or  Whig.  The  Moses  of 
Michael  Angelo  was  carved  to  fill  a  corner  of  a  monu- 
ment to  Julius  H. ;  the  group  was  never  finished;  the 
Pontiff  is  forgotten  ;  but  the  one  statue  remains,  grand 
enough  on  its  own  pedestal. 

I  know  none  to  whom  this  latter  judgment  of  our 
own  time  is  more  justly  due  than  this  great  jurist  of 
the  English  Church.  His  lot  was  to  uphold  the  na- 
tional establishment  when  it  was  in  its  first  fierce 
struggle  between  Puritan  and  traditional  Churchmen ; 
and  because  he  sought  to  define  its  ground  of  historic 
law  he  has  been  claimed  by  the  school  of  Anglican 
theorists  from  the  day  of  Laud  to  the  hitest  Oxford 
type.  Divines  like  Pusey  misquote  his  sentences,  and 
poetic  sentimentalists  like  Kcble  have  edited  his 
Polity.  Their  claims  have  been  allowed,  with  that 
lack  of  any  historic  sense  which  so  marks  it,  by  the 
Evangelical  school.  We  find  even  so  able  a  brain  as 
Dorner,  in  his  history  of  Protestant  theology,  so  half 
read  as  to  class  the  English  divine  nearest  to  the  type 
of  his  own  sober  Church,  with  the  sacerdotal  party. 


Richard  Hooker,  20 1 

Yet  in  truth  his  position  has  no  more  to  do  with  the 
ecclesiastical  system  of  the  Laudian  time  than  that  of 
a  geological  professor  with  the  fossil  bones  he  has 
studied.  He  belongs  to  no  school.  To  him  more 
than  any  other  we  can  see  the  spirit  of  English  na- 
tional churchmanship,  before  the  long  struggle  had 
ended  in  the  separation  of  the  party  of  reform,  and 
the  petrifaction  of  the  Church  party  into  a  hard  estab- 
lishment. And  it  is  for  this  reason  I  have  taken 
Hooker  as  the  writer  and  the  man  in  whom  we  can 
read  the  whole  formative  period  of  the  English  Ref- 
ormation. I  believe  the  most  needful  lesson  we  can 
learn  to-day,  after  the  forty  years'  wandering  in  the 
wilderness  of  Oxford  divinity,  is  to  study  aright  that 
period  in  this  book  of  the  great  jurist,  and  know  the 
broad,  solid,  reasonable  ground  which  the  Church  held 
at  the  beginning  of  its  history. 

I  mean,  then,  to  sketch  the  outline  of  his  life,  as  it 
is  closely  linked  with  the  religious  state  of  the  time 
when  he  wrote,  and  then  show  the  position  he  held  as 
scholar,  theologian,  and  jurist. 

It  is  in  what  I  may  call  the  second  stage  of  the 
English  Reformation  that  the  birth  and  work  of 
Hooker  have  their  place ;  and  to  know  how  he  shaped 
the  Church  we  must  know  hov/  he,  too,  had  been 
shaped  by  It,  The  Reformation  had  already  passed 
through  the  first  struggle,  which  joined  all  its  wisest 
and  best  minds  against  the  usurpation  of  Rome.  In 
9* 


202  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

its  origin  it  sprang  from  the  same  religious  and  social 
causes  as  the  movement  of  Germany  and  France. 
Nor  was  it  merely,  as  has  been  often  said,  in  this  com- 
mon protest  against  a  common  foe  that  England 
shared.  The  Protestant  principles  of  Luther  and 
Calvin,  the  doctrine  of  justification,  and  the  supremacy 
of  Scripture  above  tradition  were  as  strongly  held  by 
all  its  leaders,  and  embodied  in  its  standards  of  faith. 
Yet  while  this  original  unity  is  clear  to  every  student 
of  that  history,  it  is  as  clear  that  in  certain  features 
this  growth  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  England  was 
far  apart  from  the  rest.  It  was  not,  first  of  all,  a 
movement  which  separated  itself  at  the  start  from  the 
national  government  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  it  had  be- 
gun by  the  act  of  the  King  in  union  with  Parliament ; 
and  had  thus  a  solidarity  unknown  to  the  Protes- 
tantism of  the  Continent.  This  fact  stamped  itself  on 
every  part  of  the  structure  which  arose  by  degrees. 
No  overpowering  brain  or  will  created  a  theological 
system  or  a  polity.  The  Church  threw  off  the  Papal 
superstitions,  but  it  kept  naturally  the  national  wor- 
ship and  order.  It  kept  its  creeds,  its  liturgy,  its 
Episcopate.  There  were,  of  course,  differences  from 
the  first  between  the  more  conservative  and  more 
zealous  of  the  reformers,  as  in  the  opposition  of 
Hooper  to  the  robes.  But  they  were  not  roots  to  the 
foundation.  It  is  not  till  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  that 
we  begin  to  see  the  distinct  organization  of  a  Puritan 


Richard  Hooker,  203 

party  within  the  Church  ;  and  it  is  fairly  to  understand 
the  causes  of  it  that  I  am  here  concerned. 

I  have  said  that  the  difference  of  growth  in  the 
EngHsh  Church  lay  in  its  national  character,  and  if, 
instead  of  any  Anglican  or  Puritan  theories,  we  will 
fairly  trace  that  historic  fact,  we  shall  reach  this  truth. 
It  has  been  the  wont  of  Church  historians  to  find  the 
source  of  dissent  in  the  Presbyterian  innovations 
brought  back  by  the  Marian  exiles  from  Geneva.  It 
has  been  the  want  of  the  Neales  and  other  champions 
of  Puritanism  to  charge  the  sin  on  the  semi-popish 
ways  of  Elizabeth  and  her  *'  little  black  husband," 
Archbishop  Whitgift.  Yet  surely  we  have,  or  ought 
to  have,  outlived  these  one-sided  views,  and  can  afford 
to  know  the  truth.  It  was  the  honest  purpose  of  the 
leaders  of  the  Church  to  keep  its  national  unity. 
There  was  no  Romanism  or  semi-Romanism  or  Via 
Media  theory  or  Catholic  theory  of  our  Oxford  doc- 
triiiaires.  The  Arminian  views  of  Laud  had  not  yet 
appeared.  Whitgift  himself,  in  whose  time  Hooker 
comes,  is  a  thorough  type  of  the  High  Churchman  of 
that  day  ;  a  firm  believer  in  the  same  theology  that 
Calvin  held,  and  proving  distinctly  that  the  Episco- 
pacy rested  on  no  absolute,  divine  law,  but  only  his- 
toric precedent.  But  it  was  the  error  of  the  Church- 
man then,  as  always,  to  mistake  uniformity  for  unity. 
It  was  the  most  delicate  of  tasks  to  guide  the  strong 
passions  and  jealous  differences  of  such  a  period  ;  but 


204  Epochs  in  Church  History, 

there  was  neither  statesmanship  nor  charity  in  the 
method.   EHzabeth  was  at  once  a  Tudor  and  a  woman, 
a  self-willed   and    crooked    manager.      Whitgift   and 
Parker  were  honest   pedants.     It  was  this  policy  of 
uniformity  that  forced  into  growth  the  Presbyterian 
theory  of  the  Church.     The  Puritan  had  brought  it 
back  with  him  from  his  Genevan  exile,  yet  it  was  by 
no  means  at  first  a  defined  feature.     Calvin  himself 
was  far   from  an  enemy  of  the  English  prelacy,  and 
had  openly  expressed  his  belief  that  it  was  good  for 
England  although  bad  for  Geneva.   There  was,  again, 
with  the  Puritan  the  like  intolerance  in  another  shape. 
At  the  outset  his  cause  was  that  of  a  just  liberty.  Yet 
it  is  not  to  be  concealed  that  it  became  in  many  feat- 
ures at  last  narrower  than  that  of  the   Churchman. 
His  theology  was  of  the  hardest  type  of  supralapsa- 
rianism.     His   theory  of  Church   polity  was  that   of 
a  stern  theocracy,  incapable  of  tolerance  in  ideas,  of 
healing  the  strifes   of  Christendom,   of  appreciating 
Christian  art  or  history.     Such  is  the  just  balance  of 
the  parties  in  the  great  national  quarrel.     We  may 
safely  sum  it  up  by  saying  that  there  was  no  possibil- 
ity in  that  age  of  solving  the  problem  of  unity.     No 
party  had  learned  what  toleration  meant.     Each  be- 
lieved, when  it  had  the  power,  in  enforcing  its  creed 
by  the  stake,  or  the  milder  persuasion  of  slitting  the 
ears  of  schism.     History  only  could  teach  the  lesson. 
It  was  necessary  in  Church  as  in  State  that  the  pas- 


Richard  Hooker.  205 

sions  of  men  should  work  out  the  discord.  But  what 
we  are  to  study  in  the  life  of  Hooker  is  the  just  and 
large  principle  which  lay  in  the  structure  of  the  Eng- 
lish Reformation  in  spite  of  the  vices  that  marred  it. 
We  are  to  prove  that  in  the  plan  of  its  greatest  think- 
ers it  was  the  most  comprehensive  and  reasonable  of 
growths.  We  are  to  show  that  it  can  never  be  con- 
founded with  any  traditional  theories  of  a  later  time, 
still  less  of  modern  Oxford  ;  that  it  was  not  only 
Protestant,  but  true  to  the  broadest  idea  of  Prot- 
estantism possible  in  that  day. 

In  such  an  embittered  state  of  the  Church  Richard 
Hooker  was  born.  I  shall  not  dwell  on  the  personal 
details  of  a  life  which,  sweet  and  fair  as  it  is  in  the 
biography  of  ''  honest  Izaak  Walton,"  is  little  more 
than  that  of  the  modest  scholar  seeking  rest  in  his 
parish  corner  from  the  ''  evil  times  and  evil  tongues." 
The  town  of  Exeter,  his  birthplace,  is  not  the  least 
among  English  names,  for  it  can  boast  of  Jewel, 
Drake,  and  Raleigh.  It  is  a  pleasant  story  of  his 
youth,  his  early  ripeness  of  learning,  and  his  education 
at  Oxford,  where  he  is  sent  by  Jewel  with  the  gift  of 
ten  groats  and  his  walking  staff.  We  find  him  next 
in  his  poor  parish  of  Drayton  Beaucham.p  proving, 
like  Socrates  before  him,  that  though  the  wisest  of 
men,  he  was  a  child. in  the  knowledge  of  womankind. 
It  is  here  that  amusing  idyl  occurs,  which  Walton  tells 
so  quaintly,  when  his  college  friends,  Edwin  Sandys 


2o6  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

and  Cranmer,  find  him  reading  Horace  and  rocking 
the  cradle,  while  his  Xantippe  gives  them  a  shrewish 
welcome.  But  he  has  almost  a  harder  experience 
when  he  is  promoted  at  thirty-four  to  the  Mastership 
of  the  Temple.  It  was  his  lot  to  encounter  Master 
Travers,  a  godly  but  most  uncomfortable  Christian  of 
the  strictest  Genevan  type,  a  pupil  of  Cartwright, 
the  arch  tormentor  of  Whitgift,  and  the  T.  C.  of  the 
notes  in  Hooker's  Polity.  We  need  not  charge  Travers 
with  a  selfish  spite  because  he  had  lost  the  post  given 
to  the  young  Hooker,  for  the  theological  feuds  of  that 
day  are  quite  enough  to  explain  what  Walton  calls 
**  his  intolerable  stomach."  A  sermon  of  the  Mas- 
ter in  which  he,  with  his  large  charity,  "■  doubted  not 
God  was  merciful  to  many  of  our  forefathers,  being  in 
popish  superstition,"  called  out  the  sharp  answer  of 
the  Genevan  ;  and  although  Hooker  was  absolved 
after  public  defence,  yet  his  position  became  a  weari- 
ness, and  he  gave  up  the  Temple.  Nothing  is  more 
beautiful  than  his  letter  to  Whitgift,  praying  to  retire 
to  the  country,  *'  where  I  may  keep  myself  in  peace 
and  privacy,  and  behold  God's  blessing  spring  out  of 
my  mother  earth,  and  eat  my  bread  without  opposi- 
tion." It  is  in  the  parish  of  Boscum  he  now  gave  him- 
self to  his  Polity,  and  probably  four  books  were  here 
finished.  The  great  work  was  never  completed,  and 
we  have  now  only  an  imperfect  copy.  But  whatever 
reason  of  the  loss,  we  have  in  what  is  left  us  the  most 


Richard  Hooker,  207 

massive  monument  of  English  learning,  and  we  may- 
be grateful  that  his  fame  was  so  largely  a  posthumous 
one,  that  his  life  was  so  happily  apart  from  public 
strifes  or  honors  as  to  leave  behind  a  work  greater 
than  even  the  Whitgifts  and  Jewels  had  done  for  the 
Church.  I  think  it  one  of  the  fairest  features  of  the 
religion  which  was  nursed  in  the  English  communion, 
as  we  see  it  in  George  Herbert,  in  Ferrar,  and  Hooker. 
It  was  at  the  early  age  of  forty-six,  in  1600,  at  his 
small  parish  of  Borne,  three  miles  from  Canterbury, 
in  the  midst  of  earnest  pastoral  duties,  beloved  by  the 
poor,  devout  and  childlike  as  he  had  lived,  that  the 
author  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Polity  died.  His  work 
abides  as  stately  as  the  Cathedral  of  Canterbury  itself. 

I  must,  before  passing  to  the  character  of  his  great 
work,  give  a  few  words  to  the  claims  of  Hooker  as 
a  man  of  letters.  It  is  never  to  be  forgotten  that  the 
first  classic  of  English  prose  is  \hQ  Ecclesiastical  Polity. 
We  have  no  writer  before  him  who  can  share  this 
honor. 

I  do  not,  of  course,  call  the  style  of  Hooker,  or  of 
any  of  the  great  prose  writers  of  that  time,  the  model 
of  English.  We  have  in  them  all  the  long,  involved 
sentences,  retaining  from  the  Saxon  that  inversion,  so 
jarring  to  our  ears,  with  much,  too,  of  the  stiffness  of 
scholastic  Latin.  Yet  there  is  in  Hooker  the  richest 
beauty  and  strength  of  English  speech.  There  can- 
not be  found  in  Shakespeare  or  Spenser  a  choicer  vo- 


2o8  Epochs  in  C/nirch  History. 

cabulary,  or  a  nicer  mastery  of  the  language.  But 
beyond  this,  he  has  a  sense  of  poetic  harmony  as  per- 
fect as  Milton,  a  sweep  of  musical  expression,  a  gath- 
ered, tidal  eloquence,  which  give  to  the  argument  of 
his  book  at  times  the  epic  strength  of  the  ^*  Paradise 
Lost."  We  may  well  say  that,  had  not  his  fame  as  a 
thinker  eclipsed  his  lesser  powers,  were  his  Ecclesias- 
tical Polity  to  be  read  purely  for  its  language,  there 
is  hardly  a  work  so  full  of  quotable  passages.  He  can- 
not take  up  the  small  questions  of  a  service-book  or  a 
wedding-ring,  without  making  you  feel  that  he  is  as 
far  above  the  thought  of  a  traditional  Churchman  as 
Michael  Angelo  was  above  a  hodman.  He  will  pile  all 
authorities  and  all  logic  on  a  single  point  ;  yet  you 
know  he  is  no  dry  polemic  like  a  Bellarmine,  but  an 
ideal  thinker  reasoning  of  the  laws  of  the  divine  state. 
There  is  a  grandeur,  even  when  he  is  forced  in  his 
great  argument  to  descend  to  controversy  ;  he  begins 
like  the  eagle  with  a  vast  circle,  and  sails  by  degrees 
inward  in  lesser  rounds,  until  he  poises  himself  at  one 
point  overhead,  and,  with  an  easy  plunge  strikes  his 
beak  into  some  small  sparrow  of  a  Travers. 

With  this  glance  at  the  style  of  Hooker,  I  must 
hasten  to  the  study  of  him  as  theologian  and  Church- 
man. I  need  not  dwell  long  on  his  theological  views, 
because  his  genius  was  not  that  of  the  speculative 
thinker ;  nor  has  he  left  anything,  save  a  few  ser- 
mons, that  have  a  special  worth  in  this  line.     It  is, 


Richard  Hooker.  209 

however,  In  this  very  feature  we  can  best  understand 
the  EngHsh  Church  of  that  time  ;  and  no  writer  will 
more  truly  show  us  its  difference  from  the  leading 
minds  among  the  reformers  of  continental  growth. 
We  must  not  mistake  the  fact  that,  in  the  chief 
articles  of  Protestant  theology,  the  divines  of  Eng- 
land, not  only  Puritan,  but  all  from  Cranmer  to 
Hooker  and  Andrewes,  were  nearer  to  the  school  of 
Calvin  than  any  other.  Arminianism  does  not  ap- 
pear till  the  time  of  Laud  ;  and,  even  in  the  printed 
opinions  of  the  ambassadors  sent  to  the  Council  of 
Dort  by  James,  there  is  a  stout  adherence  to  the 
supralapsarian  scheme.  I  insist  on  this  fact,  because 
it  proves  the  utter  groundlessness  of  our  Oxford  the- 
orists, who  claim  from  the  first  an  Anglo-Catholic 
theology  opposed  to  the  Puritan  Creed;  The  simple 
truth  is,  that  the  conflict  was  not  at  all  a  theological 
one  at  that  time,  but  a  conflict  between  a  national 
Church  and  a  Presbyterial  polity,  which  had  grown 
up  in  alliance  with  continental  colonialism  and  been 
imported  into  England.  The  difference  of  theology 
was,  so  to  say,  a  tone  rather  than  a  principle.  Cal- 
vinism was,  as  a  Church  movement,  based  on  a  doc- 
trinal idea ;  it  developed  it  with  an  iron  logic  into 
a  system.  The  genius  of  the  English  Churchman  was 
not  speculative  ;  and  thus,  from  the  first,  there  was 
less  logic  and  more  moderation  in  his  doctrinal  view. 
We  have,  then,  in  Hooker,  the  full  evidence  of  this. 


210  Epochs  in  CJnirch  History. 

His  theology  must  be  gathered  from  his  few  sermons, 
and  several  striking  passages  of  his  Polity  It  is,  in 
the  main,  that  of  Augustin.  We  too  often  forget, 
when  we  speak  of  Calvin  as  the  author  of  those  doc- 
trines of  election,  inability,  effectual  calling,  so  dom- 
inant at  the  Reformation,  that  it  was  Augustin  who 
stamped  them  on  the  Church.  Calvin  only  tore  them 
asunder  from  the  scholastic  dogmas  of  mass  and  priest- 
hood fastened  to  them,  and  reshaped  them.  It  is 
Augustin  who  is  alike  the  master  of  Whitgift,  Hooker, 
and  the  Swiss  reformer.  We  have  here  the  key  to  the 
differences  of  the  English  and  continental  theologians, 
as  well  as  their  agreement.  Hooker  follows  the  system 
of  the  great  Latin  teacher,  yet  it  is  always  with  the 
clear,  practical  thought  of  the  jurist  more  than  the 
subtle  dialectician  of  the  schools.  No  more  condensed 
statement  of  the  whole  question  of  the  Incarnation 
can  be  found  than  that  in  his  fourth  book  on  the 
Sacraments.  His  Christology  is,  again,  that  of  Au- 
gustin, and  entirely  in  accordance  with  Luther,  Me- 
lancthon,  and  Calvin,  although  at  this  day  so  misun- 
derstood. He  rejects  the  Thomist  dogma  of  opus 
operattim  in  the  Sacraments,  yet  holds  an  incorpora- 
tion with  Christ,  in  his  undivided  humanity  of  soul 
and  body,  by  which  there  is  a  grace  begun  in  bap- 
tism and  continued  in  the  Eucharist.  But  of  this  I 
shall  speak  more  fully  when  I  examine  his  Church 
principles.     In  the  cardinal  points  of   the    reformed 


Richard  Hooker.  21 1 

doctrine,  he  is  in  entire  harmony  with  the  divines  of 
the  Continent.  His  view  of  justification  is  that  of  Lu- 
ther, and,  in  the  clearest  words,  he  rejects  the  the- 
ology which  confounds  it  with  sanctification.  He 
maintains  the  doctrine  of  foreordination  ;  and,  al- 
though with  the  double-edged  paradox  of  the  system 
he  calls  the  reprobate  self-doomed,  but  made  to  be 
self-doomed,  there  is  no  hint  of  any  Arminian  con- 
tingency. He  holds  the  domun perseverantics  as  Gos- 
pel truth.  But  when  we  turn  from  these  theological 
formulas  <Df  his  time  to  the  larger  and  more  ethical 
judgments  of  Hooker,  we  find  it  was  the  practical 
wisdom,  the  moderation,  the  unfettered  .  sense,  that 
gave  the  Church  of  England  its  real  difference  from 
the  theological  sectary.  What  can  be  a  truer  posi- 
tion of  Christian  ethics  than  he  lays  down  in  the  first 
Book  of  the  Polity?  "They  err,  who  think  that  of 
the  will  of  God  to  do  this  or  that,  there  can  be  no 
reason  save  His  will."  It  recalls  that  noble  sentence 
of  Cudworth :  "The  root  of  all  power  is  goodness." 
Or  read  this  definition  of  the  moral  powers,  as  the 
antidote  to  the  whole  doctrine  of  necessity  from  Ed- 
wards to  Bain  :  "  Appetite  is  the  will's  solicitor,  will 
is  the  appetite's  controller."  "  There  is  in  will  that 
power,  whereby  it  is  apt  to  take  or  refuse  any  object 
which  reason  presents  to  it."  "  Evil  as  evil  cannot  be 
desired  ;  if  that  denied  is  evil,  the  cause  is  that  good- 
ness, which  is  or  seemeth  to  be  joined  with  it."  In  the 


212  Epochs  in  CJmrch  History. 

same  philosophic  spirit  he  allows  the  power  and  func- 
tion of  reason  in  man,  nor  is  there  any  clearer  distinc- 
tion made  by  Locke  or  Leibnitz  between  a  reasonable 
and  a  blind  faith  than  by  Hooker.  "-  The  lav/  of  rea- 
son is  that  which  men  have  by  discourse  of  natural 
reason  found  out  themselves."  ''We  seek  for  the  re- 
vealed laws  of  God  only  in  the  Scriptures.  Yet,  al- 
though it  contain  all  things  necessary  to  salvation,  it 
presupposes  some  things,  of  which  we  are  already 
persuaded  "by  the  light  of  natural  knowledge.  These 
few  sentences  are  enough  to  show  the  tone  of  his 
theology.  It  is  neither  that  of  the  extreme  Calvinist, 
nor  of  the  Anglo-Catholic  ;  it  is  nearer  that  of  Chill- 
ingworth,  Whichcote,  and  the  rational  thinkers  of 
their  day.  And  I  can  best  close  this  part  of  my 
sketch  by  recalling  the  memorable  battle  with  Trav- 
ers,  which  grew  out  of  the  sermon  on  "Justification." 
We  cannot,  indeed,  look  back  without  wonder  at  that 
race  of  preachers  and  hearers  who  could  sit  under  an 
avalanche  of  exhortation  for  two  or  three  hours,  when 
all  the  characters  of  the  Old  Testament,  from  Noah 
to  Daniel,  and  all  the  fathers  were  marshalled  against 
the  Pope,  or  the  mystery  of  foreordination  defended 
by  the  most  learned  absurdities  of  exegesis.  Yet 
the  royal  Solomon  of  England,  lords,  and  tradesfolk 
listened  with  unslacked  thirst.  It  is  the  key  to  that 
singular  clause  in  the  Baptismal' Service  where  spon- 
sors   are   warned,  as    their    first    duty  to    their  god- 


Richard  Hooker.  213 

children,  to  '^call  upon  them  to  hear  sermons."  That 
age  beheved  in  the  Christian  life  as  a  good  flagella- 
tion, and  it  set  thus  early  before  the  child  the  surest 
means  of  grace.  Hooker  is  not  free  from  this  gift  of 
tediousness.  Yet  amidst  the  wash  of  pulpit  learning 
there  are  grand  outbursts  from  the  heart  of  the  man. 
In  this  great  sermon  he  sums  the  strife  between 
Rome  and  the  Reformers;  he  unmasks  keenly  the 
errors  of  Papal  doctrine,  and  declares  the  principle 
of  justifying  faith  as  the  ground  of  the  true  Church  ; 
yet,  with  a  large  wisdom,  he  shows  that  theoretical 
error  may  not  uproot  essential  faith  in  Christ,  and 
that  salvation  is  not  to  be  denied  to  the  papist.  It  is 
a  sad  yet  Avholesom.e  proof  of  our  gain,  when  we  learn 
that  such  a  sentiment,  hardly  refused  now  by  the 
most  fiery  of  Protestants,  was  attacked  by  Travers  as 
pestilent  heresy,  and  that  Hooker  was  forced  to  de- 
fend himself  before  the  archbishop.  We  read  to-day 
with  disgust  the  cruel  cant  of  this  man,  who  could 
consign  to  everlasting  fires  all,  from  the  Fathers  down- 
ward, not  found  quite  orthodox  in  the  article  of  justifi- 
cation. The  whole  breadth  of  the  Church  of  England, 
the  candor,  the  kindness,  the  "  sweet  reasonableness  " 
of  her  creed,  is  embodied  in  that  glowing  sentence 
of  her  Master  of  the  Temple:  "  Let  me  die,  if  it  be 
ever  proved  that  simply  an  error  doth  exclude  Pope 
or  cardinal  from  hope  of  life." 

We  are  now  ready  to  read  the  great  master  work  of 


214  Epochs  in  Church  History, 

the  man,  and  of  the  English  Church.  My  wish  has 
been  to  show  beforehand  the  growth  of  such  a  mind 
amidst  the  social  and  religious  elements  of  his  time,  as 
the  preface  to  this,  study  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Polity, 
I  cannot,  of  course,  give  more  than  the  leading  prin- 
ciples of  it,  so  that  you  can  see  at  a  glance,  as  when 
you  stand  in  the  nave  under  the  springing  arches  of 
Salisbury,  the  plan  of  the  building.  I  have  called 
Hooker  the  jurist  of  the  Church.  This  is  what  dis- 
tinguishes him  from  the  mere  apologist.  It  is  the  first 
work  in  which  any  writer  had  attempted,  instead 
of  one-sided  Church  polemics,  to  show  the  historic 
structure  of  the  Christian  state,  as  embodied  in  the 
national  faith  and  order.  This  treatise  was  the  gift  of 
his  life  and  learning  to  the  cause  of  unity  in  the  most 
troublous  times.  If  any  will  learn  the  real  conflict,  told 
with  a  style  as  tempered  with  an  earnest  sadness,  a 
wit  as  free  from  bitterness  as  could  be  found  in  a  work 
of  that  bitter  day,  let  him  carefully  read  the  preface. 
I  do  not  claim  that  he  was  without  a  prejudice,  or 
that  he  made  always  fair  allowance  for  the  griefs  of  the 
Puritan.  I  shall  frankly  admit  his  defects  in  the  course 
of  my  sketch.  He  was  a  hearty  son  and  lover  of  the 
English  Church.  He  was  earnest  to  maintain  what 
he  believed  to  be  its  foundation  principles  as  a  na- 
tional growth.  Yet  in  so  doing  he  proves,  as  I  have 
said  all  along,  his  thorough  unity  with  the  doctrines  of 
the  Reformation ;   and  the  admiration  which  he  ex- 


Richard  Hooker,  215 

presses  for  Calvin,  even  to  the  acceptance  of  his  Pres- 
byterial  poHty  in  Geneva  as  valid  in  the  churches  of 
the  continent,  tells  us  at  the  outset  the  breadth  of  his 
view.  Let  us  clearly  understand  from  these  writings 
of  the  time  the  real  position  of  the  Puritan  and  the 
Churchman.  It  is  because  it  has  been  so  often  mis- 
conceived, alike  by  friends  and  foes,  that  the  original 
breach  has  been  widened  till  it  has  seemed  impas- 
sable. Had  the  Puritan  of  that  day  only  aimed  at  a 
larger  liberty,  instead  of  the  uniformity  in  rites  and 
ceremonies  imposed  by  the  Church ;  had  he  only  de- 
nied the  undue  power  of  the  Bishops,  or  the  real  tyr- 
anny of  the  crown,  his  cause  would  have  been  just. 
There  were  many  reforms  needed  to  secure  a  true 
Reformation.  But  this  was  not  his  position.  His 
ground  was  that,  as  the  Word  of  God  was  the  sole, 
supreme  authority  for  Christian  men,  all  offices  of  the 
Church,  all  rites  or  ceremonies,  must  be  by  the  pre- 
script pattern  of  Scripture.  Whatever  was  not  thus 
prescript  was  untrue  or  anti-Christian.  It  followed, 
therefore,  that  not  only  the  false  tradition  of  Rome, 
but  the  prelacy,  the  ceremonial  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land must  be  abolished  as  utter  falsehood.  Such  a 
principle  was  not  that  of  the  Reformation.  It  was 
only  that  of  one-sided  theorists,  and  the  lai'ger  part  of 
the  evils  of  Protestant  sects  has  come  from  this  mis- 
take. It  led  to  that  Bibliolatry  which  has  made 
Scripture  an  apology  for  every  narrow  and  rigid  inter- 


2i6  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

pretation  of  it.  It  was  the  ignoring  of  all  Christian 
history.  It  led  by  another  road  to  the  same  hier- 
archy it  would  destroy  in  Rome,  the  copy  of  an 
Old  Testament  theocracy,  or  the  exact  pattern  of  a 
primitive  Church.  The  position  of  Hooker  was  the 
true  ground  of  the  Reformation.  He  maintained  the 
Scripture  as  the  sole  authority  in  essential  faith,  but 
the  right  of  the  Church  as  a  social  body  to  make  such 
laws  and  ceremonies  as  were  needful  for  it,  in  so  far 
as  they  were  not  contrary  to  God's  word,  or  imposed 
as  of  divine,  essential  faith.  It  was  the  position  of  his 
own  Church.  It  is  the  principle  of  sound  reason,  of 
true  biblical  criticism,  of  Church  history. 

I  shall,  then,  present  first  his  great  argument  on 
this  principle  of  law  as  it  is  treated  in  the  first  four 
books,  and  then  his  view  of  the  specific  features  of 
the  Church,  its  sacraments  and  rites,  its  ministry  and 
its  relation  to  the  State.  My  analysis  will  be  a  brief 
one,  and,  as  far  as  I  can,  such  as  to  give  his  own  lan- 
guage. I  need  not  say  that  I  commend  you  to  a  thor- 
ough study  of  him.  At  this  day  many  find  it  a  heavy 
book,  and  for  these  he  did  not  write.  Hooker  is  for 
thinkers  only.  It  is  the  nature  of  Church  authority 
he  examines  as  based  on  reason  and  social  law.  Law 
is  the  principle  "  whereby  the  Eternal  Himself  doth 
work."  ''  All  things  have  some  operation  not  violent 
or  casual ;  "  and  '^  the  being  of  God  is  a  kind  of  law  to 
his  working."  This  law  is  of  several  sorts,  *'  of  nature, 


Richard  Hooker,  21  y 

of  heavenly  creatures,  of  reason  ;  and  the  last  elthei' 
divine  or  human."  It  is  in  this  description  of  natural 
law  the  grand  sentence  comes,  so  often  repeated  by 
those  who  know  nothing  of  him  beyond  it.  But  there 
is  still  another  sentence,  seldom  quoted,  yet  probably 
the  original  of  the  famous  saying  of  Sir  Thomas 
Browne, ''nature  is  the  art  of  God."  It  is  with  a 
truer  insight  than  our  modern  scientific  boasters  of 
law  that  he  sees  a  Mind  in  this  perfect  order,  and  says, 
*'  these  things  which  nature  is  said  to  do  are  by  divine 
art  performed."  Human  law  is  next  analyzed  with 
clear  ethical  skill.  "  There  is  in  man,  as  an  intelligent 
and  moral  being,  the  desire  of  the  utmost  good 
whereof  his  nature  is  capable."  To  discover  this 
good  there  are  two  ways,  knowledge  of  its  causes,  and 
observation  of  its  tokens.  The  latter  is  more  within 
our  sphere.  The  most  certain  token  is  general  per- 
suasion. *'  The  general  and  perpetual  voice  of  man  is 
as  the  sentence  of  God  himself."  We  have  here  the  true 
philosophic  idea  of  that  law  of  Catholic  authority  which 
Vincent  of  Lerins  and  our  Oxford  divines  have  fossil- 
ized into  tradition.  It  is  the  Catholic  voice  of  reason 
itself.  These  laws  of  reason  are  such  as  "  men  have 
by  discourse  of  natural  reason  found  out  themselves," 
"  without  help  of  revelation  supernatural,"  as  that  God 
is  to  be  worshipped,  parents  to  be  honored.  It  is  on 
these  society  rests.  No  answer  to  the  selfish  scheme 
of  Hobbes  or  our  own  sophists  is  truer  than  this 
10 


2i8  Epochs  ijt  Church  History. 

whole  part  of  the  book.  The  '*  natural  desh'e  of  social 
life  "  is  the  fountain  of  government.  Order  begins, 
as  the  arch  philosopher  said,  with  the  household,  and 
as  each  parent  was  a  king,  so  the  kingdom  was  the 
first  type  of  authority.  Whatever  in  these  laws  is 
for  the  common  good  abides,  because  *'  corporations 
are  immortal."  I  cannot  help  thinking  that  Burke 
must  have  read  this  passage  before  he  wrote  his  splen- 
did paragraph  in  the  Reflections  on  the  immortality  of 
great  social  institutions  as  they  are  bequeathed  from 
ap-e  to  asfe.  And  I  would  call  attention  still  more  to 
a  passage  on  the  laws  of  nations  which  shows  the 
marvellous  insight  of  a  Christian  jurist,  now  the  ideal 
of  statesmen,  of  a  principle  then  hardly  dreamed  of. 
It  is  in  this  principle  of  international,  Catholic  law  he 
lays  the  authority  of  general  councils.  Nothing  can 
show  better  the  difference  of  the  jurist  from  the  eccle- 
siastic than  this. 

With  this  rational  and  social  view  Hooker  now 
passes  to  the  question  of  supernatural  law.  I  will 
not  dwell  on  the  noble  ethics  of  his  introduction,  but 
seize  the  links  of  the  reasoning.  The  revealed  law  of 
God  is  given  us  in  Scripture.  Yet,  though  it  contain 
all  things  necessary  to  salvation,  it  presupposes  some 
of  which  we  are  persuaded  by  our  reason,  e.g.,  the 
authority  of  Scripture  itself.  The  light  of  natural 
reason  is  not  excluded  from  our  judgment  of  revealed 
truth.     There  are  in  Scripture  traditions  that  make  no 


Richard  Hooker. 


219 


part  of  its  necessary,  supernatural  essence,  nor  are 
even  some  Apostolic  rites  beyond  alteration.  We 
must  judge  of  the  positive  laws  of  Scripture  ''  accord- 
ing to  the  matter  concerning  which  they  were  made." 
*'  Laws,  either  natural  or  supernatural,  which  have  no 
variable  matter,  belong  forever  ;  but  those  for  men  or 
Churches,  made  such  as  the  nature  of  the  case  may 
require  them  to  be  otherwise  ordered  afterward " 
may  be  changed.  "  The  power  of  all  societies  is 
contained  in  the  same  societies."  In  this  view  Hooker 
now  examines  the  ''  head  theorem  "  of  the  Puritans. 
They  held  "  that  the  Scripture  of  God  is  in  such  sort 
the  rule  of  human  action,  that  simply  whatsoever  we  do 
and  are  not  by  it  directed  thereunto,  the  same  is  sin." 
He  replies  that  much  which  Scripture  does  not  prescribe 
is  notwithstanding  wise  and  good.  "  Some  things 
wisdom  openeth  by  the  book  of  Scripture  ;  some  by 
the  glorious  works  of  nature  ;  some  she  whispereth  from 
above  by  spiritual  influence  ;  in  some  she  leadeth  and 
traineth  by  Avorldly  experience."  He  sums  all  with 
the  rejection  of  all  one-sided  errors.  "  The  schools  of 
Rome  teach  Scripture  to  be  insufficient,  as  if,  except 
traditions  be  added,  it  did  not  contain  all  revealed, 
necessary  truth  to  be  saved."  "  Others  grow  into  the 
dangerous  extremity,  as  if  Scripture  not  only  contains 
all  necessary,  but  to  do  anything  according  to  any 
other  law  were  unlawful."  I  have  dwelt  thus  long  on 
the  line  of  Hoojver's  argument,  because  it  is  such  a 


220  Epochs  i7t  Church  History. 

masterpiece  of  national  and  impartial  thought.  It  is 
as  clear  an  appeal  to  right  reason  against  the  tradition 
of  the  Romish  or  Oxford  Churchman  as  the  literalism 
of  the  Puritan.  A  disciple  of  Pusey  might  well  "  stare 
and  gasp  "  as  he  reads  this  sentence  :  **  Although  ten 
thousand  general  councils  would  set  down  any  one,  and 
the  same  definitive  sentence  concerning  any  point  of 
religion  whatever,  yet  one  demonstrative  reason  al- 
leged, or  one  manifest  testimony  cited  from  the  mouth 
of  God  Himself  to  the  contrary,  could  not  choose  but 
overweigh  them  all,  inasmuch  as  for  them  to  have 
been  deceived  it  is  not  impossible." 

It  is  now  in  accordance  with  this  view  of  social  law, 
that  Hooker  passes  in  his  third  book  to  the  structure  of 
the  Church.  He  begins,  in  harmony  with  all  the  Re- 
formers, by  the  distinction  between  the  ecclcsia  invisi- 
hilis  and  visibilis  ;  but  it  will  be  seen  at  once  how  he 
takes  the  broad,  Catholic  ground,  which  divides  him 
on  either  hand  from  the  Roman  hierarchy  and  the 
Puritan  hierarchy  of  an  elect  theological  sect.  The 
mystical  or  invisible  Church  is  one,  but  not  known  to 
us.  The  visible  is  one  in  outward  profession  of  one 
Lord,  faith,  baptism.  Its  rule  of  faith  is  contained  in 
the  Apostles'  Creed,  Its  entrance  is  by  baptism.  All 
baptized  persons,  according  to  Christ's  own  form  of 
words,  are  members  of  the  Church  visible.  This 
visible  Church  is  not  perfect  ;  it  may  contain  heretics 
and  men  of  bad  life,  as  Christ  allowed  the  wheat  and 


Richard  Hooker.  221 

tares  to  grow  together  till  the  harvest.  All  mistakes 
like  that  of  the  Donatists,  who  sought  to  create  a 
Church  of  pure  saints,  come  from  confounding  this 
mystical  and  visible  body  together.  Undoubtedly 
Hooker  laid  his  finger  here  on  the  radical  defect  of  the 
Puritan  movement.  It  was  a  conscientious  effort  of 
good  men  to  realize  in  the  Church  the  ideal  of  an 
elect,  spiritual  family;  and  it  could  only  end  in  a  nar- 
row theological  sect.  The  position  of  Hooker  was  the 
same  as  that  of  Augustin,  and  it  agreed  with  that  of 
the  Continental  Reformers.  But  it  w*as,  again,  in  this 
conception  of  the  Church  as  a  visible,  imperfect  body, 
that  he  found  the  true  view  of  its  unity  as  a  Re- 
formed body.  It  was  not  a  new  Church,  he  answers, 
when  Rome  asked  where  the  Protestant  was  before 
Luther;  ''To  reform  ourselves,  is  not  to  sever  our- 
selves from  the  Church  we  were  of  before."  He  al- 
lows that  ''  even  with  Rome,  while  we  do  not  share 
her  abominations,  yet  as  touching  the  main  points  of 
Christian  truth,  it  is  of  the  family  of  Christ."  It  is 
very  curious  to  observe  the  contradiction  which  he 
mentions  here  in  the  Church  of  Calvin,  as  it  shows  the 
Donatist  tendency  more  fully  developed  in  the  Puri- 
tan. *'  The  answer  of  Calvin  to  Paul,"  says  Hooker, 
**  is  crazed,"  when  he  forbade  baptizing  an  infant  of 
Romish  parents  ;  and  against  it  he  praised  the  college 
of  Geneva,  which  *'  soundly  overruled  Knox"  in  say- 
ing,  that  *'  infants  are  beguiled   of  their  rights  "   in 


222  Epochs  i?t  Church  History. 

such  case.  Yet  it  is  equally  to  be  noted,  how  his  view 
of  the  unity  of  the  Church  is  as  utterly  distinct  from 
the  Anglo-Catholic  as  the  Puritan.  He  does  not  find 
this  unity  in  any  primitive,  Nicene  age,  still  less  in 
any  exclusion  of  the  Protestant  Reformation,  but  in 
the  very  principle  of  the  Church  of  Christ  as  essenti- 
ally one  in  all  ages,  and  restored  by  the  Reformation 
to  its  true  Catholicity.  This  is  the  principle  of  a 
large  Church  history. 

It  is  this  view  of  the  Church  that  he  applies  to  the 
whole  vexed  question  of  the  right  rule  of  Reformation. 
All  may  hold  the  necessity  '*  of  polity  and  regimen  " 
without  holding  ''  one  form  necessary  in  all."  "  The 
Church  Catholic  hath  a  number  of  societies,"  yet  it  is 
one  as  ''  the  main  body  of  the  sea  is  one,  yet  hath 
within  divers  precincts  and  divers  names."  *'  Matters 
of  faith,  necessary  to  salvation  and  sacraments,  are 
contained  in  God's  word.  But  matters  of  ceremony, 
order.  Church  government,  are  free  if  nothing  against 
them  be  alleged  from  the  Scripture."  It  is  here  that 
Hooker  rises  into  one  of  those  noble  utterances  which 
reveal  the  breadth  of  his  theology.  We  may  justly 
claim  for  the  Puritan  that  he  fought  for  freedom 
against  an  unwise  uniformity,  but  we  quite  mistake 
when  we  call  the  spirit  of  his  religious  thought  free 
or  reasonable.  He  railed  against  the  English  Church 
for  setting  human  reason  above  God's  word,  because 
it  kept  any  custom  of  the  past,  from  a  Christmas  feast 


Richard  Hooker.  223 

or  a  collect  to  a  wedding  ring.  He  would  enforce  any 
strict  interpretation  of  a  Mosaic  Sabbath  law,  or  a 
hint  about  lay  elders  as  grounded  on  the  Word. 
Hooker,  with  keen  logic,  points  out  their  contradic- 
tion, that  "  to  quote  some  historical  narration  or 
other  as  if  exact  law  "  was  to  "  add  to  God's  law." 
And  then  he  exclaims  that  it  would  seem  *'  to  be  ripe 
in  faith  even  to  be  raw  in  wit  and  judgment."  ""  The 
star  of  reason  and  learning  beginneth  to  be  thought 
of  as  an  unlucky  comet,  as  if  God  had  so  accursed  it 
that  it  should  never  shine  in  things  concerning  our 
duty  to  Him,  but  be  esteemed  as  that  star  in  the  Rev- 
elation called  Wormwood,  which  being  fallen  from 
Heaven  maketh  rivers  and  waters  so  bitter  that  men 
tasting  them  die  thereof."  ''  They  never  use  reason 
so  willingly  as  to  disgrace  reason."  ''  But  reason  is  of 
God.  The  self-same  spirit  which  revealeth  the  things 
God  set  down  in  his  law  aids  men  in  finding  out  by 
the  light  of  reason  what  laws  are  expedient  over  and 
besides."  A  grand  appeal  against  a  narrow  faith, 
vv'orthy  of  the  best  intellect  of  the  Church  ;  Avhich  I 
repeat  not  merely  to  show  its  truth  against  the  Cart- 
wrights  of  that  time,  but  the  same  railers  in  the  guise 
of  Oxford  divinity  to-day,  who  set  Catholic  faith 
against  true  learning,  and  never  use  reason  save  to 
disgrace  reason  !  And  one  more  great  sentence  I 
must  add,  to  be  commended  to  all  our  traditional 
Churchmen,    who    will   defend    their    Episcopacy   or 


224  EpocJis  ill  Church  History. 

worship  by  the  same  forcing  process  of  Scripture  as 
those  Hooker  rebuked.  "If  we  did  seek  to  maintain 
what  most  advantageth  our  cause,  the  very  best  and 
strongest  were  to  hold  even  as  they,  that  in  Scripture 
there  must  needs  be  some  particular  form  of  the  pol- 
ity God  hath  instituted,  and  which  for  that  cause  be- 
longeth  to  all  churches  and  all  times.  But  we  are 
persuaded  of  nothing  more  than  this,  that  no  untrutli 
can  avail  the  patron  and  defender  long ;  and  that 
things  most  truly  are  likewise  most  behovefully 
spoken."  If  such  had  been  the  fair  and  noble  spirit 
in  which  the  Church  of  England  then  and  her  cham- 
pions since  had  carried  her  historic  claims,  her  broad 
principles,  Into  her  polity,  the  whole  party  of  dissent 
would  have  melted  into  a  loving  unity.  It  is  in  this 
large  spirit  he  closes  the  defence  of  the  English  Ref- 
ormation. Its  law,  he  claims,  is  not  divine,  but 
mutable.  Yet  it  is  wise,  and  that  is  ''  a  loose  opinion 
of  the  Anabaptist  that  Christian  liberty  is  lost  If  any 
law  be  imposed  besides  the  Gospel."  The  Church 
had  a  just  authority,  and  It  Is  *'  no  matter  of  indiffer- 
ence "  If  men  obey.  Each  charge  of  the  Puritan  is  thus 
met.  It  was  the  fling  of  Cartwrlght  that  the  Church 
of  England  was  half  way  in  her  reformation,  and  that 
"  superstitions  must  be  cured  by  their  contraries." 
The  reply  of  Hooker  Is  with  his  own  grave,  keen 
humor.  "  He  that  will  take  away  extreme  heat  by 
setting  the  body  in  extremity  of  cold,  shall  doubtless 


Richard  Hooker.  225 

remove  the  disease,  but  with  it  the  diseased  too." 
We  disallow  all  Romish  ceremonies  that  are  unprofit- 
able, not  count  all  unprofitable  that  are  Romish.  If 
the  Church  of  Rome  say  blasphemously  that  we  can- 
not stand  save  by  her  ceremonies,  the  charge  is  the 
shoe  of  Hercules  on  a  child's  foot.  Our  ceremonies 
do  not  belong  to  this  or  that  sect,  but  are  the  ancient 
rites  of  the  Church  of  Christ.  It  is  urged  that  the 
English  Church  should  frame  itself  to  the  pattern  of 
those  who  began  Reformation.  Hooker  answers  with 
Gregory,  ''  In  una  fide  nil  afficit  ecclesiae  sanctae 
consuetudo  diversa  ;  "  and  another  weighty  saying  of 
Calvin  that  "  in  rites  it  sometime  profiteth  that  there 
be  difference,  lest  men  think  religion  tied  to  outward 
ceremonies."  "■  One  family  is  not  abridged  of  liberty 
to  wear  friars'  grey,  for  that  another  doth  wear  clay 
color."  The  English  Church,  in  altering  her  rites, 
thought  but  to  change  what  could  be  without  danger, 
leaving  others  to  be  abolished  by  disusage  through 
trust  of  time.  '■'  True,  no  councils  or  customs,  never  so 
ancient  or  general,  can  let  the  Church  from  taking  away 
what  is  hurtful ;  but  the  true  rule  is  to  keep  customs 
till  there  be  urgent  cause  to  ordain  the  contrary." 

We  have  now  so  thoroughly  analyzed  the  principles 
of  Hooker,  that  we  need  to  turn  only  to  the  chief 
points  of  the  rem.aining  books,  especially  his  view  of 
the  sacraments  and  ministry.  There  is  nothing 
in  which  he  more  truly  gives  us  the  reasonable  historic 


226  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

sense  of  the  English  Reformation,  and  the  plain  con- 
tradiction of  its  Anglo-Catholic  pretensions.  The  fifth 
book  begins  with  the  whole  question  of  Church  cere- 
monies. It  is  his  aim  to  show,  in  reply  to  the  many 
criticisms  of  the  Puritan,  the  sober  ground  on  which 
the  worship  was  reform.ed.  I  will  not  linger  on  them 
save  to  say  that  his  principle,  from  first  to  last,  as  it 
affirms  the  right  of  the  Church  to  keep  anything 
which  is  true  or  good  or  beautiful  in  the  past,  is  as 
distinct  from  a  false  or  fantastic  'symbolism.  It  is 
the  spirit  of  Christian  art,  of  a  sound  conservatism, 
which  does  not  forget  the  dependence  of  all  outward 
form  on  an  inward  piety.  ''  It  is  not  the  cross  on  our 
foreheads,  but  in  our  hearts  the  faith  of  Christ,  v»4iich 
as  we  grant  most  true,  so  neither  do  we  despise,  no, 
not  the  meanest  help  that  aids  toward  the  highest 
service."  We  owe  to  this  wise  judgment  of  the  Church 
all  that  is  best  in  the  liturgy  or  worship  we  have 
inherited.  No  more  curious  proof  can  be  found  than 
in  this  book  of  the  one-sided  iconoclasm  of  the  Puritan, 
which  attacked  so  many  ceremonies  that  at  this  day 
would  be  thought  of  little  moment — the  surplice,  the 
cross,  the  ring  in  baptism,  the  bowing  in  the  creed, 
the  chant  and  the  Lord's  Prayer.  It  merely  proves 
how  shallow  are  almost  all  the  quarrels  of  any  age, 
from  that  of  Plooker  to  the  solemn  inquirers  of  our 
own  as  to  the  north  end  of  the  tabic  or  the  color  of  a 
stole.     Yet  I  am  bound  to  say,  while  Hooker's  princi- 


Richard  Hooker,  227 

pie  is  sound,  that  without  doubt  the  Puritan  was  right 
in  many  of  his  objections.  It  should  have  been  the 
duty  of  the  Church  by  Hooker's  own  rule  not  to 
enforce  on  all  consciences  what  he  allowed  to  be 
adiacpopa.  Our  own  experience  has  shown  us  that  his 
apology  for  much  in  the  English  service  v/as  not  proof 
against  'Misusage  through  trust  of  time."  In  the 
most  striking  case,  that  of  the  Athanasian  Creed,  our 
best  historic  criticism  has  shown  it  to  be  an  uncatholic, 
unauthorized  interpolation  of  a  metaphysical  age, 
unfit  for  Church  worship  ;  and  it  has  been  wisely  left 
out  of  the  American  Prayer  Book.  That  it  keeps  its 
place  in  the  English  is  proof  of  its  adherence  to 
Hooker's  mistake,  not  his  Church  principle. 

But  I  must  pass  to  the  far  more  weighty  point  of 
Hooker's  teaching  as  to  the  sacraments.  I  do  not 
know  any  stronger  instance  of  the  way  in  which  we 
have  lost  all  true  ideas  of  the  Reformed  theology  of 
that  time  than  the  common  mistake  as  to  his  view.  It 
was  far  from  that  of  the  Romish  or  Anglo-Catholic 
school,  and  almost  entirely  one  with  the  faith  of  Calvin. 
To  understand  it  we  must  know  the  Christology  of  the 
Reformers  on  which  their  doctrine  of  sacramental 
grace  rested.  They  had  rejected  the  Thomist  dogma 
of  Rome,  that  of  an  opts  opcratuin  in  the  sacraments; 
and  held  that  their  virtue  lay  in  the  direct  operation 
of  the  divine  Lord.  But  in  giving  up  the  school 
dogma  they  still  retained  the  Christology  of  Angus- 


228  Epochs  in  Church  History, 

tine.  We  have  in  the  fifth  book  of  Hooker  the 
clearer  statement  of  it.  God  has  assumed  man's 
nature  in  the  person  of  Christ ;  and  thus,  although  the 
substance  of  Christ's  body  has  only  a  local  presence, 
there  is  a  presence  of  his  bodily  with  his  spiritual 
humanity ;  a  presence  not  local,  but  of  force  and 
efficacy.  It  is  thus,  as  his  mystical  body,  we  receive 
a  participation,  body  and  soul,  with  his  life.  Sacra- 
ments are  hence  the  means  of  grace.  They  do  not 
give  the  grace,  for  it  can  only  be  from  the  divine  Word 
Himself.  Yet  they  are  not  mere  signs,  but  his  own 
means  of  incorporation  with  our  humanity.  Such,  I 
say,  was  the  doctrine  of  all  the  Reformers,  including 
Calvin.  I  do  not,  of  course,  maintain  it,  but  simply 
explain  it.  It  was  not  till  a  later  day,  with  the  new 
method  of  Descartes,  that  the  received  ideas  of  sub- 
stance and  accident  passed  away ;  and  Luther,  Melanc- 
thon,  Hooker  were  realists  of  the  school  of  Augustine. 
To  us  this  notion  of  the  real  substance  of  Christ,  divine 
and  human,  pervading  body  and  soul,  is  simply  the 
most  unreal  of  abstractions.  It  belongs  no  longer  to 
a  reasonable  theology.  But  we  cannot  understand  the 
systems  or  sacramental  theories  of  the  Reformers, 
save  by  this  key. 

If  we  apply  this  Christological  view  to  baptism, 
we  have  the  doctrine  of  Hooker.  Baptism  is  the  Sac- 
rament of  regeneration  in  this  sense,  that  it  is  the 
means  through  which  the  initiatory  grace  of  Christ  is 


Richard  Hooker.  229 

given,  body  and  soul.  The  grace  is  not  in  the  ele- 
ment, or  the  water  changed,  as  the  Romish  view 
affirms.  It  is  in  Christ,  who  conveys  it.  It  is  not, 
therefore,  tied  to  the  Sacrament,  but  unbaptized  chil- 
dren and  persons  may  receive  this  grace.  The  ancients 
are  too  prone  to  make  the  necessity  of  baptism  more 
absolute  than  reason  would.  Yet  it  is  not  a  mere 
outward  sign.  It  is  the  appointed  instrumentality 
of  the  new  birth.  Hooker  thus  defends  the  baptism 
of  heretics  or  of  lay  persons,  against  the  restriction 
made  by  the  Puritan.  Now,  in  this  position,  we  have 
the  crux  of  the  whole  question  of  baptismal  regener- 
ation. His  doctrine  is  precisely  that  of  the  Prayer 
Book  and  the  reformed  English  Church.  All  its 
phrases  of '' mystical  washing  away  of  sin," '' receiv- 
ing remission,"  its  assertion  that  "  the  child  is  regen- 
erate," are  clear.  But,  as  I  said,  it  is  just  as  truly  the 
doctrine  of  Luther,  of  BuUinger,  and  the  body  of  re- 
formers. Our  Anglo-Catholics,  in  claiming  that  the 
Church  differs  from  those  communions  and  keeps  the 
Catholic  faith,  simply  shows  its  ignorance  of  history. 
Our  Protestants  \\A\o  call  the  service  Romanizing 
are  equally  ignorant.  The  difference  lies  simply  here, 
that  most  Protestant  communions,  in  giving  up  the 
use  of  their  early  liturgic  forms,  have  not  retained  the 
original  idea  of  regeneration,  but  have  changed  it  into 
that  of  conversion  ;  while  the  English  Church,  in  keep- 
ing its  archaic  service,  has  kept  also  the  phrases  be- 


230  Epochs  m  Church  History, 

longing  to  the  Augustlnian  Christology.  "We  need 
not  be  perplexed  by  the  baptismal  service  if  we  have 
learned  not  to  identify  the  essential  faith  of  the  re- 
formers with  a  metaphysical  notion  of  their  time. 

If  we  turn  to  the  doctrine  of  Holy  Communion, 
we  have  the  same  key  to  the  views  of  Hooker  and 
the  English  Church  of  his  day.  It  is  the  Sacrament 
which  contains  life  ;  and,  with  all  the  reformers,  Cal- 
vin and  Zwingli  included,  he  holds  it  the  means  of  a 
supernatural  grace,  not  a  barren  sign.  But  he  utterly 
rejects  any  idea  of  an  objective  presence  in  the  ele- 
ments, which  is  the  root  of  the  Roman  and  the  Oxford 
doctrine.  "  The  real  presence  is  not  to  be  sought  in 
the  Sacrament,  but  in  the  worthy  receiving  of  the  Sa- 
crament." ''  The  Sacraments  really  exhibit,  but  are  not 
really,  nor  do  really  contain  in  themselves  that  grace 
which,  by  or  with  them,  it  pleases  God  to  bestow." 
We  have  here  the  view  of  Augustin,  and  of  the  re- 
formers, both  English  and  continental.  And  we  have, 
just  as  in  the  Ofiice  of  Baptism,  the  solution  of  those 
phrases  which,  in  the  English  or  American  book, 
teach  what  is  called  the  "  real  presence."  The  prayer 
that  we  may  so  eat  and  drink  that  ''  our  sinful  bodies 
may  be  made  clean  by  His  body,"  that  ''we  may  be 
made  one  body  with  Him,"  denotes  the  same  idea 
of  a  participation  by  this  Sacrament  of  the  whole  hu- 
manity of  Christ,  body  and  soul.  Yet  it  is  no  pres- 
ence in  the  elements,  which  remain  ''  creatures  of  bread 


Richard  Hooker,  231 

and  wine "  after  consecration,  it  is  a  presence  of 
Christ  to  the  partaker.  I  do  not  know  any  more 
groundless  misinterpretation  than  that  made  by  the 
Oxford  divines  to  construe  the  eloquent  sentences  of 
Hooker,  when  he  states  the  Catholic  truth  as  the 
Eirenicon  of  varied  confessions.  The  position  of  the 
Oxford  divinity  is  that  the  viodtis  of  the  presence  is  an 
undefined  mystery.  Now  this  is  the  very  point  re- 
jected by  Hooker.  He  names  the  three  interpreta- 
tions, that  of  Rome,  of  Luther,  and  of  Calvin,  and 
accepts  the  last  as  that  which  '*  hath  in  it  nothing " 
but  what  the  rest  do  all  approve  and  acknowledge  to 
be  most  true;  that  is,  "this  hallowed  food,  through 
concurrence  of  divine  grace,  is  unto  faithful  receivers 
instrumentally  a  cause  of  that  mystical  participation, 
whereby  I  give  them  actual  possession  of  all  such 
saving  grace  as  my  sacrificial  body  can  yield.  This  is 
to  them,  and  in  them,  my  body."  The  Oxford  di- 
vinity, in  accepting  an  undefined  yet  real  presence  in 
the  elements,  ends  as  logically  in  transubstantiation  as 
the  physiologist  who  says,  ''  I  know  not  how,  only  in 
some  way  the  tissue  thinks,"  ends  in  materialism. 
The  theology  of  Hooker  denies  any  grace,  save  in  the 
♦personal  Christ ;  any  presence,  save  to  and  in  the 
receiver  in  the  act  of  receiving.  One  point  remains  of 
most  concern  to  us — the  view  of  Hooker  as  to  the 
Episcopate.  It  is  the  logical  result  of  his  Church 
principle.     The  Church  is  a  body  which,  in  its  social 


232  Epochs  hi   Church  History. 

structure,  has  the  right  to  make  such  laws  and  offices 
as  it  needs.  There  is  no  prescript  form  of  govern- 
ment which  is  in  itself  unalterable  or  absolute.  It  is 
on  this  ground  he  maintains  Episcopacy  against  the 
Puritan.  The  Puritan  rejected  prelacy  as  a  human 
invention,  and  claimed  that  there  was  no  right  in  the 
Church  to  go  beyond  the  simplicity  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment pattern.  Prelacy  was  anti  christ.  Plooker  ex- 
amines the  evidence  ;  he  shows  that  the  Church  had 
such  an  order  of  superior  officers,  from  Apostle  to 
diocesan  bishops,  without  break;  and  that  the  Eng- 
lish Church  in  keeping  it  has,  therefore,  kept  historic 
precedent  and  venerable  order.  But  he  in  no  sense 
bases  the  fact  on  any  divine  law  of  Apostolic  succes- 
sion. He  does  not  claim  the  necessity  of  the  Epis- 
copate to  the  being  or  integrity  of  the  Church  ;  he 
freely  allows  that  such  churches  as  were  by  untoward 
circumstances  organized  without  bishops,  are  author- 
ized to  have  a  ministry  suited  to  their  needs.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  of  his  view  here.  ''Although  some 
reformed  Churches,  the  Scottish  especially  and  French, 
have  not  that  which  best  agreeth  with  Scripture,  the 
government  by  bishop?,  I  rather  lament  the  defect 
than  exagitate, since  none  without  fault  maybe  driven 
to  erect  that  polity  which  is  best."  Yet  more,  he 
clearly  affirms  that  this  perpetuity  of  the  order  in  no 
way  destroys  the  supreme  authority  of  the  whole 
body.     The  power  is  in  the  Church  to  keep  or  modify 


Richard  Hooker.  233 

or  remove  it.  Should  the  Episcopate  prove  to  be 
useless  or  despotic,  it  may  be  annulled. 

There  can  be  no  more  crucial  instance  of  the  utter 
distance  between  the  early  reformers  and  the  pre- 
tended exponents  of  Church  principles.  This  was  the 
ground  of  all,  from  Cranmer  to  the  High  Churchman 
of  his  time,  Whitgift,  and  the  two  great  champions, 
Hooker  and  Field.  It  is  one  of  the  most  curious  facts 
in  history  that  the  Anglican,  who  in  that  day  simply 
defended  Prelacy  on  the  broad  ground  of  historic  fact 
against  the  narrow  Puritan,  has  been  replaced  by  the 
Anglo-Catholic,  who  takes  the  Puritan  position  that 
the  exact  pattern  of  Church  polity  must  be  given  in 
Scripture,  and  that  all  else  is  invalid.  Such  are  the 
paradoxes  of  Church  history. 

But  I  cannot  give  a  thorough  idea  of  the  great 
work  of  our  jurist  without  at  least  a  word  on  the  sub- 
ject of  his  last  book,  TJic  Royal  Supremacy.  To 
many  it  will  seem  a  question  of  State  policy.  It  is 
not  so  with  this  profound  thinker,  but  rather  he  has 
anticipated  the  position  maintained  by  the  noblest 
reasoners  of  our  day,  like  Rothe  and  Arnold.  The 
argument  of  the  Puritan  at  that  time  was  not  merely 
against  the  despotic  acts  of  Henry  or  Elizabeth,  nor 
even  merely  against  the  undue  prerogative  allowed  to 
the  monarch  to  interfere  with  the  laws  of  the  Church. 
Had  it  been  this,  his  opposition  would  hav^e  been  a 
most  righteous  one.     It  was  precisely  that  which  Arch- 


234  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

bishop  Manning-  has  urged  to-day,  that  the  Church  is 
a  divine  autonomy,  and  cannot  admit  any  human 
supremacy.  And  it  was  against  this  that  Hooker, 
with  all  the  statesmen  of  his  Church,  maintained  the 
claim  of  the  national  body.  The  supremacy  of  the 
king  in  his  view  is  in  no  sense  that  of  divine  or  abso- 
lute head.  He  is  not  rex  supra  ccclesiain^  scd  intra 
ccclesiani.  The  authority  of  the  kingdom  is  that  of 
law,  and  the  Parliament  is  the  legal  representative  of 
the  nation,  in  union  with  the  monarch.  It  is,  then, 
the  Church  in  its  social  and  national  relations  which 
must  be  subject  to  the  laws.  The  State  is  the  same 
body  of  men  in  civic  as  the  Church  in  religious  mat- 
ters ;  and  there  can  be  no  such  dualism  as  that  of  two 
separate,  independent  realms  in  one  nation.  Such  is 
the  theory  of  Hooker  ;  and  whatever  our  views  of  the 
despotism  of  a  Henry,  or  the  secular  Pontificate  of 
Elizabeth,  we  must  grant  that  it  is  a  strong  and  wise 
defence  of  the  principle  of  a  national  Church.  We 
may  deny  the  wisdom  of  an  Establishment  in  America, 
but  we  can  never  forget  that  in  England  we  are  rea- 
soning not  of  our  self-made  institution,  but  of  a 
national  religion  which  had  grown  for  centuries  en- 
twined at  its  roots  with  the  whole  structure  of  the 
State.  Its  maintenance  in  the  day  of  Hooker  was 
essential.  The  supremacy  of  the  throne  meant  the 
protest  of  the  nation  against  the  usurpation  of  the 
Papacy.     It  was  this  unity  of  Church  and  State  which 


Richard  Hooker.  235 

saved  Protestantism  from  the  fate  it  met  in  France, 
and  from  the  deadly  feud  of  Germany  with  the  em- 
pire. None  can  deny  the  evils  mingled  with  it,  its 
injustice  toward  dissenters,  its  effect  on  the  spiritual 
life  of  the  Church,  its  simony,  its  intolerance,  its  un- 
faithfulness to  the  national  duty  which  alone  gave  it 
its  rights.  Yet  we  may  safely  say  that  it  has  remained 
because  it  was  a  historic  growth,  and  could  not  pass 
away  until  it  was  outgrown.  Nor  can  we  doubt, 
whatever  the  future,  that  its  thoughtful  advocates  to- 
day are  among  the  most  liberal  of  Churchmen  and 
scholars,  as  wide  apart  as  Gladstone,  Stanley,  Norman 
McLeod,  Matthew  Arnold,  who  uphold  it  because  it 
is  the  cause  of  national  culture,  the  safeguard  of  re- 
ligious freedom  against  ecclesiastical  narrowness.  It 
is  not  to  be  overlooked  that  the  loudest  declaimers 
against  Erastianism  are  now  the  party  of  extremists 
in  dogma  and  worship. 

I  can  only  hope,  in  closing  this  sketch,  that  I  have 
done  somewhat  toward  the  purpose,  for  which  I  have 
offered  you  the  life  and  work  of  Hooker.  It  is  not 
merely  to  linger  as  a  devout  scholar  may  do  over  a 
faded  name,  but  because  I  believe  that  a  knowledge  of 
his  principles  will  do  more  than  the  study  of  almost 
any  of  our  early  Churchmen  to  teach  the  character  of 
the  English  Reformation  and  to  decide  the  strifes  that 
belong  to  our  own  time.  We  have  strangely  lost, 
within  the  last  forty  years,  the  plainest  truths  of  that 


236  Epochs  in  ChiircJi  History. 

past  history.  It  has  become  the  received  opinion  that 
while  the  first  Reformers,  Hke  Cranmer  and  Hooper, 
may  have  been  in  unison  with  the  Protestantism  of 
the  Continent,  we  have  in  Hooker,  Andrews,  and 
Laud  the  true  founders  of  the  Anglo-Cathohc  Church. 
If  I  have  shown  anything,  it  is  that  the  position  of 
Hooker  is,  in  the  principles  gf  creed  and  polity,  one 
with  that  of  the  earlier  Reformers,  and  that  the 
Church  of  his  time,  the  period  of  its  settled  formation, 
is  severed  in  its  whole  view  of  theology,  worship,  minis- 
try, by  an  impassable  chasm  from  that  which  our 
modern  school  of  Oxford  claims.  I  might  go  much 
further,  for  I  am  sure  that  a  study  of  all  from  Andrews 
to  Thorndike,  who  have  been  absurdly  styled  ''Anglo- 
Catholic  fathers,"  will  simply  prove  that  there  was 
never  any  such  system  save  in  the  brain  of  Oxford 
relic-hunters  ;  that  there  is  the  widest  difference  in 
so-called  Church  principles  between  them,  and  that  at 
best  they  represent  one  period  of  dull  scholastic  intel- 
lect and  stiff  reaction  in  the  history  of  the  English 
Church.  But  it  is  enough  to  plant  the  evidence  on 
the  nobler  ground  of  Hooker's  time.  Let  me  gather 
our  conclusions  and  place  them  side  by  side  with  the 
pretensions  of  the  party  which  calls  itself  the  Church. 
The  one  holds  the  law  of  the  Church  to  be  based  on 
the  nature  of  a  social  commonwealth,  and  inherent  in 
the  whole  body  ;  the  other  rests  it  on  the  unity  of  an 
outward    tradition,    interpreted    by   its    ecclesiastical 


Richard  Hooker,  237 

heads.  The  one  holds  the  Protestant  Reformation  to 
be  the  true  historic  step  in  the  progress  of  the  Churchy 
and  would  only  preserve  the  continuity  of  the  body 
with  the  real  life  of  the  past ;  the  other  plants  itself  on 
a  fancied  Catholic  age  before  the  Papacy,  and  rejects 
the  Reformation  as  a  failure.  The  one  holds  the 
supremacy  of  God's  word,  and  denies  the  infallibility 
of  even  general  councils ;  the  other  rests  on  the  de- 
crees of  Nice  as  concurrent  with  Scripture  and  ulti- 
mate authority.  The  one  retains  the  Episcopate  as 
of  historic  worth;  the  other  rejects  the  validity  of  all 
other  orders.  Such  is  the  contest.  It  is  plain  to  any 
student  of  the  facts.  It  will  be  seen  in  due  time, 
when  the  idols  of  the  cave  are  broken,  the  one-sided 
learning,  the  false  reverence,  which  have  misled  so 
many  from  the  solid  ground  of  the  English  fathers. 
We  need  not  mourn  over  the  years  of  blind  strife 
through  which  the  Church  has  been  compelled  to  pass 
in  order  to  reach  the  result.  It  is  the  law  of  history. 
The  national  body  was  doomed  to  expiate,  by  the  dis- 
sent of  thousands  of  her  most  conscientious  sons,  by 
her  own  feuds,  by  an  age  of  secular  stagnation,  and  at 
laist  by  these  forty  years  of  deadly  reaction,  her  un- 
truth to  her  own  principles.  But  the  trial  is  already 
Hearing  the  end.  It  is  enough  for  us,  who  live  in  the 
transition  time,  to  know  that  we  are  no  destructives, 
but  heirs  of  their  work  who  laid  the  ground  plan,  and 
have  left  to  us  to  finish  what  no  as^e  could  more  than 


238  Epochs  m  Church  History. 

begin.  If  my  sketch  do  somewhat  to  help  you  to 
read  for  yourselves  the  great  jurist  whom  I  claim  as 
the  head  Churchman  of  his  generation,  and  in  whom 
I  am  proud  to  find  my  Apostolic  succession,  I  can  do 
no  better  service  for  all  Christian  scholars. 


THE    AIM    AND    INFLUENCE 

OF 

BIBLICAL    CRITICISM. 

AN  ADDRESS  GIVEN  AT  THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 
OF  THE  DIOCESE  OF  VIRGINIA. 

JUNE  25,  1879. 


ADDRESS. 

You  have  asked  me,  brethren  of  the  Alumni,  to 
give  you  an  essay  on  Biblical  Criticism.  I  do  so  with 
more  than  common  pleasure,  because  I  feel  that  your 
interest  in  such  a  subject  is  the  proof  of  an  underlying 
Christian  life  in  this  old  and  honored  school.  It  is  not, 
however,  easy  to  choose  what  branch  of  the  large  ques- 
tion I  should  bring  before  you.  I  think  that  I  should 
better  meet  the  Avants  of  all,  if,  instead  of  a  mere  theo- 
retical view,  I  should  speak  of  it  in  its  real  bearings,  as 
it  is  linked  with  the  growth  of  Christian  learning,  and 
the  special  problems  of  our  own  time.  My  topic,  then 
is  the  Aim  and  Influence  of  Modern  Biblical  Criticism. 
And  if,  indeed,  I  can  so  handle  it  as  to  show  you  that 
this  ripest  knowledge  leads  not  to  a  merely  critical 

239 


240  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

result,  but  to  the  upbuilding  of  a  positive  and  more 
abiding  faith  in  the  Gospel  of  our  Lord,  I  shall  have 
fulfilled  my  earnest  wish. 

No  feature  of  our  time  has  more  meaning  for  the 
Christian  scholar  than  that  of  the  new  life,  which  has 
been  poured  into  all  studies  bearing  on  the  Scriptures. 
Biblical  science  maybe  called,  indeed,  one  of  the  ripest 
outgrowths  of  the  last  half  century.  We  can  never 
forget  the  great  periods  of  the  past,  when  masters  like 
Bengel  gave  a  fresh  impulse  to  sacred  letters,  or  a 
school  of  Hebraists  like  the  elder  Lightfoot  was  to  be 
found  in  England.  Yet  if  we  compare  our  wealth  to- 
day, in  every  path  of  biblical  learning,  with  the  scanty 
literature  of  forty  years  ago,  we  may  have  some  idea 
of  the  gain.  I  need  not  dwell  on  the  influence  which 
the  larger  knowledge  of  Oriental  languages  and  history 
has  had  on  the  study  of  the  Old  Testament ;  the  rich 
researches  into  its  early  annals,  its  literature,  its  later 
growth,  and,  above  all,  the  obscure  time  from  the  de- 
cline of  the  hierarchy  of  Ezra  to  the  day  of  Christ. 
Nor  has  the  advance  been  less  in  the  knowledge  of  the 
sources  of  the  New  Testament.  A  flood  of  light  has 
been  thrown  on  the  structure  of  the  Gospels,  and  the 
connection  of  the  apostolic  history  with  the  half-known 
period  just  after  it.  It  is  not  only  in  the  scholarship 
of  the  Continent  we  find  this  life,  but  we  may  safely  say 
that  there  has  never  been  in  England  so  thorough  and 
manifold  a  range  of  learning. 


TJie  Aim  and  Influence  of  Biblical  Criticism,     241 

Yet  there  is  a  deeper  cause  than  the  general  growth 
of  letters  for  this  zeal  in  biblical  study.  It  is  owing  to 
the  change  in  the  whole  culture  of  the  time  from  mere 
abstract  pursuits  to  the  real  sphere  of  history  and  scien- 
tific research.  The  once-absorbing  influence  of  our 
theological  methods  has  given  place  to  criticism.  I 
am  far  from  the  belief  that  this  shows  in  any  sense  the 
decay  of  sound  doctrine.  I  hold  the  very  opposite. 
Theology  must  always  have  its  high  rank,  because  its 
truths  awaken  the  highest  thoughts  of  men.  But  it 
must  find  its  work  in  the  living  atmosphere  of  the  time, 
not  merely  repeat  the  strifes  of  a  past  metaphysics, 
with  which  w^e  have  as  little  to  do  as  with  the  theory 
of  phlogiston.  Our  scholars  have  begun  to  learn  that, 
in  a  day  when  Baur  and  Renan  are  dissecting  apostolic 
history  to  prove  that  the  bulk  of  St.  Paul's  epistles  are 
of  later  date,  it  is  fruitless  to  fight  over  the  remains  of 
the  Calvinistic  and  Arminian  battle-field.  Christian 
inquiry  is,  therefore,  leading  us  to  the  sources.  This 
is  the  open  secret  of  the  change  from  the  theological 
to  the  critical  spirit.  Had  I  space,  I  should  be  glad  to 
recall  in  the  history  of  Protestant  thought  the  ear- 
lier cases  of  the  same  striking  fact.  Protestantism  it- 
self was  this  appeal  from  the  scholastic  systems  to  the 
Bible  ;  and  its  first  years  were  marked  by  the  growth 
of  critical  learning.  The  commentaries  of  Calvin  were 
for  his  time  a  model,  yet  he  was  only  one  in  the  host 
of  scholars.     It  was  when  in  its  turn  the  living  faith  of 


242  Epochs  in   Church  History. 

Luther  had  been  embahiied  in  a  formal  theology,  that 
Bengel  opened  anew  the  page  of  the  Gospels  ;  and  its 
fruit  was  the  revival  of  a  more  spiritual  belief  as  well 
as  a  sounder  criticism.  But  I  can  only  glance  at  this 
history  to  grasp  its  principle.  We  may  thank  God  for 
the  quickening  power  of  the  Reformation,  which  com- 
pels us,  in  spite  of  the  tendency  at  times  tp  drift  to- 
ward a  dogmatic  infallibility,  always  to  return  to  that 
study  of  the  open  Word  given  as  our  birthright. 

Such  I  hold  to  be  the  aim  of  our  modern  learning. 
There  are  many,  indeed,  to  whom  it  means  only  the 
brilliant  unbelief  of  German  schools ;  who  are  sore 
afraid  of  all  researches  into  the  date  of  our  earth ;  who 
shudder  at  the  name  of  comparative  religion,  and  would 
think  it  a  blessing  if  no  officious  Tischendorf  had  un- 
buried  the  Sinaitic  MSS.,  to  help  on  the  perilous  work 
of  a  revision.  But  it  is  folly  to  mistake  the  passing 
errors  of  a  time  for  its  real  growth.  If  I  cannot  set 
right  such  incurables,  I  may  yet  hope  to  convince  some 
clearer  minds  that  the  gain  is  greater  than  the  loss,  and 
the  result  sure  of  a  more  living  faith  in  the  Christian 
revelation.  We  are  to  find  our  unity,  amidst  the  dis- 
cords of  opinion,  in  the  sources  of  divine  truth.  We 
go  backward  from  the  seven  mouths  of  the  historic 
Nile,  and  trace  the  turbid  tide  through  the  desert 
or  the  strip  of  green  plain  it  has  watered,  until  we 
reach  the  fountain-head.  This  is  the  purpose  of  my 
essay.     I    shall  endeavor  to  show  the  principle  of  a 


The  Aim  and  Influence  of  Biblical  Criticism.  243 

true  biblical  criticism,  its  influence  on  theological  in- 
quiry, on  our  view  of  Church  history,  above  all  on  the 
growth  of  a  more  real  Christianity  in  the  life  of  the 
time. 

Let  us  ask,  as  the  first  step  in  this  treatment  of  the 
subject,  what  we  mean  by  biblical  science  ;  for  to  most 
minds,  and  not  seldom  to  the  clerical  mind,  it  is  an 
unknown  quantity.  The  study  of  the  Bible  means  to 
one  the  ecclesiastical  tradition  which  he  calls  the  voice 
of  the  Church,  to  another  the  theological  system  which 
he  calls  the  Gospel ;  yet  in  either  case  it  may  be  with- 
out any  clear  critical  principle.  We  mean,  then,  by 
biblical  science,  simply  the  application  to  the  Scrip- 
tures of  the  methods  which  govern  us  in  all  thorough 
interpretation.  It  is,  indeed,  our  starting-point  as 
Christian  scholars,  that  the  sacred  books  are  our  su- 
preme and  sole  authority  in  matters  of  faith,  and 
''  contain  all  truth  necessary  to  salvation."  Nor  when 
we  speak  of  criticism,  do  we  at  all  imply  that  a  mere 
scientific  or  literary  study  can  give  us  that  deeper 
knowledge  of  the  divine  truth,  which  alone  can  make 
it  the  Word  of  God.  Far  from  it.  This  Word  may 
speak  to  the  mind  and  heart  of  a  Christian  reader,  al- 
though he  knows  notTiing  of  the  methods  of  exact 
learning  ;  and  if  the  keenest  criticism  do  not  approach 
it  with  special  reverence  for  a  book  which  has  fed  the 
spiritual  life  of  men  as  no  other  has  done,  it  will  be 
barren  indeed  even  for  the  scholar.     But  we  are  not  to 


244  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

confound  the  authority  of  its  divine  truth  with  the  au- 
thority of  any  human  systems  of  interpretation.  As 
a  book  written  in  Hebrew  and  in  provincial  Greek, 
given  in  the  historic  form,  its  meaning,  so  far  as  it 
touches  on  any  points  of  language,  history,  science, 
literature,  can  only  be  reached  by  an  open  criticism. 
Any  theory  that  forbids  or  evades  this  is  not  only  fatal 
to  science,  but  to  revelation  itself.  The  authority  of 
the  church  is  valid,  in  that  it  preserves  our  unity  in 
the  essential  truth  of  Christ,  but  it  can  never  pronounce 
its  decree  on  those  questions  which,  in  the  nature  of 
the  case,  are  within  the  fields  of  a  growing  knowledge. 
If  it  do  this,  it  has  denied  the  supremacy  of  the  Word, 
and  affirmed  the  Romish  dogma  of  a  hum.an  infalli- 
bility. Biblical  science,  then,  is  simply  the  science  of 
right  reason  and  moral  honesty.  There  is  nothing  ar- 
bitrary in  its  methods.  The  principle  of  induction 
which  it  follows  is  the  key  of  all  sure  knowledge.  It 
is  thus  that  a  genuine  science  has  gained  its  wonderful 
results  in  the  domain  of  nature,  because  it  no  longer 
reasons  from  preconceived  theory,  but  begins  with 
facts,  and  verifies  them.  The  science  of  language  has 
thus  laid  its  firm  groundwork  in  our  time,  in  tracing 
the  structural  growth  of  manifold  forms  of  speech  to 
their  common  roots.  Modern  history  has  achieved 
every  triumph  In  the  same  way  since  NIebuhr  sifted 
the  Roman  legends.  It  must  be  so,  therefore,  with 
the  study  of  the  Scriptures,  if  we  can  claim  any  just 


The  Aim  and  Influence  of  Biblical  Criticism,     245 

principles  of  criticism  at  all.  Such  a  task,  of  course, 
is  a  most  varied  one.  It  mxust  begin  with  the  structure 
of  the  whole,  and  pass  to  the  examination  of  each 
part  ;  it  must  involve  the  question  of  primeval  man, 
of  early  religions,  the  phases  of  Hebrew  growth,  and 
the  transition  to  the  age  of  the  Gospels  vv'ith  the  form- 
ation of  the  Christian  Church.  Yet  the  same  critical 
canon  runs  through  all  our  study.  History,  points  of 
science,  poetry  and  theology  are  judged  by  their  own 
plain  meaning,  and  verified  by  the  impartial  tests  of 
science. 

It  must  be  clear,  then,  that  such  a  critical  study 
could  only,  as  with  all  science,  reach  its  sure  results  in 
a  gradual  growth.  The  divine  truth  of  Christ  abides 
unchanged  alike  in  its  substance,  and  in  its  real  influ- 
ence on  the  life  of  believers.  But  the  exposition  of 
the  written  Word  is  in  its  nature  a  human  knowledge, 
which  must  pass  through  its  earlier  and  crude  methods. 
Any  one,  familiar  with  the  hi.'itory  of  Biblical  interpre- 
tation, knows  the  fact  of  such  a  growth  since  the  day 
of  Origen  ;  and  yet  few  have  recognized  in  the  very 
steps  of  the  process  a  sure  law.  The  modern  ration- 
alist will  sneer  at  the  use  of  the  word  science  in  regard 
of  Scriptural  study ;  but  our  true  answer,  as  the  de- 
fenders of  the  faith  will  do  well  to  know,  is  just  this, 
that  it  has  only  kept  pace  with  all  science  in  its  mis- 
takes or  its  gains.  The  simplest  laws  of  knowledge  are 
always  the  latest.     Alchemy  must  precede  chemistry; 


24^  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

astronomy  must  grope  its  way  through  the  fancies  of 
the  astrologer;  and  philology,  even  to  the  day  of 
Home  Tooke,  was  a  system  of  ingenious  guesswork. 
And  I  can,  therefore,  take  no  better  mode  of  showing 
the  results  of  biblical  science  than  by  a  brief  historic 
sketch. 

It  was,  then,  natural  that  in  its  growth  toward  a 
sound  method  of  interpretation  the  Church  should 
pass  through  certain  steps  of  development,  which  I 
may  sum  up  under  the  heads  of  the  mystical  and  the 
dogmatic  principles.  My  aim  is  to  show  how  each 
sprang  out  of  the  character  of  the  time,  and  how,  in 
this  view,  we  know  alike  the  truth  and  the  crude  error. 
It  was,  first  of  all,  by  the  Christian  Fathers,  in  the 
time  when  there  was  a  deep  spiritual  insight  into  the 
truth  of  revelation,  but  little  critical  knowledge  of  his- 
tory or  language,  that  the  mystical  principle  was  estab- 
lished. The  system  was  an  inheritance  from  the 
Jewish  schools.  It  had.  developed  in  two  directions."^ 
In  the  schools  of  Palestine  there  was  a  stricter  study 
of  the  letter ;  but  the  Old  Testament  was  regarded  as 
a  book  of  occult  wisdom,  in  which  the  Rabbis  hunted 
for  a  mystery  beneath  each  vowel-point.  In  the  schools 
of  Alexandria  the  Greek  culture  led  to  a  far  freer, 
speculative  method.  We  can  never  understand  the 
early  Fathers,  unless  we   read  the  works  of  Philo,  the 

*  Nicolas,  "Hist,  des  Doctrines  Relig.  d.  Juifs,"  pt.  i.,  ch.  I. 


The  Aim  and  Influence  of  Biblical  Criticism.    247 

earlier  master  of  symbolic  wisdom.  It  was  his  aim  to 
idealize  the  anthropomorphic  features  that  were  in 
conflict  with  his  Platonic  ideas,  and  to  bring  out  the 
loftier  truth  oi  revelation.  Every  chapter  of  Genesis 
is  transformed  into  the  most  arbitrary  fancies,  and  not 
a  vestige  of  literal  narrative  is  left. 

Such  was  the  method  that  passed  into  the  literature 
of  the  Church.  We  have  in  Origen  the  noblest  scholar 
of  his  age,  a  statement  of  the  principle  on  which  the 
Christian  study  of  the  Bible  should  rest.  **  Because 
the  Scriptures  are  written  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  they 
have  not  only  a  manifest  sense,  but  one  hidden  from 
many."  In  accordance  with  the  received  division  of 
body,  soul,  and  spirit,  he  therefore  claims  three  senses 
or  interpretations  ;  the  literal  for  the  vulgar  mind,  the 
allegorical  for  the  early,  childish  stage  of  belief,  and 
the  spiritual  for  the  spiritual."  It  is  true  that  all  the 
fathers  were  not  such  mystics  in  their  exposition  as 
Origen,  yet  all  held  the  same  idea  of  the  Scriptures. 
Neander  has  said  that  the  school  of  Antioch  was  of  a 
far  soberer  learning,  and  has  contrasted  again  the  more 
practical  teaching  of  the  early  Roman*  fathers  with 
that  of  the  Greek.  Yet  this  criticism  seems  to  us 
hardly  to  touch  the  real  point.  We  trace  in  the  Chris- 
tian expositors,  as  in  the  Hebrew,  the  two  tendencies 
to  the  more  symbolic  method  of  Philo  and  the  more 

^  Origen,  mpl  dpx^y,  lib.  iv.,  5,  12. 


248  Epochs  in  Church  History, 

literal  of  Palestine  ;  but  both  had  the  same  notion  of 
an  occult  wisdom  to  be  found  by  a  subtle  interpreta- 
tion. The  truth  of  the  Christ  and  his  spiritual 
Gospel,  which  only  could  give  the  key  to  the  Old 
Testament,  was  indeed  a  profound  one.  But  instead 
of  studying  it  in  the  clear  method  of  history,  the 
Bible  was  made  a  sacred  anagram  ;  the  most  natural 
facts  of  Jewish  worship  or  chronicle  became  arbitrary 
figures  of  the  new  dispensation.  Type  and  allegory 
were  the  master-key  that  unlocked  all  the  dark  cham- 
bers, from  the  early  chapters  of  Genesis  to  the  poetry 
of  David  or  the  grand  utterances  of  Isaiah.  Wherever 
we  turn  to  the  fathers,  to  the  epistles  of  Clement  or 
the  sober  Irenaeus,  to  Tertullian,  who  finds  the  type 
of  baptism  in  the  Spirit  brooding  on  the  waters  and 
in  the  passage  through  the  Red  Sea  ;  or  to  Augustine, 
who  explains  the  six  creative  days  as  symbols  of  the 
ages  of  divine  history,  we  have  the  numberless  cases 
of  this  style  of  exposition.  We  prize  the  early  Chris- 
tian writers  for  their  intellectual  and  spiritual  power 
in  the  great  conflict  of  the  faith  with  a  Pagan  wisdom  ; 
nay,  we  can. often  admire  with  Coleridge  the  rich,  de- 
vout fancy  glowing  through  the  homilies  of  Augustine; 
but  as  Biblical  scholars  all  were  simply  of  a  time  when 
true  criticism  was  hardly  known. 

It  Ava^  from  this  source,  then,  that  the  mystical 
method  passed  into  the  Latin  Church  of  later  times. 
Nor  is  it  strange  that  it  should  remain  there.     It  is 


The  Awt  and  Influence  of  Biblical  Criticism,  249 

indeed  the  best  proof  to-day  of  its  incapacity  of  a 
sound  Biblical  learning,  that  Newman''^  in  his  essay  on 
development  claims,  as  one  of  the  notes  of  the  Catho- 
lic faith,  the  canon  of  mystical  exegesis.  The  Bible 
becomes,  by  the  "fourfold  method"  of  its  doctors, 
topical,  allegorical,  analogical,  and  anagogical ;  a  kalei- 
doscope, in  which  the  disjointed  bits  of  Scripture  can 
be  shaken  into  any  shape  of  doctrine.  That  method 
has  never,  indeed,  been  so  reduced  to  system  by  earlier 
or  by  later  Protestant  expositors.  Luther  laughed  at 
the  fourfold  division.  It  is  to  the  honor  of  the  Eng- 
lish Church  that  her  best  translator  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, Tyndale,  has  stated  the  true  principle  most 
clearly :  "  Understand  that  Scripture  hath  but  one 
sense,  and  that  the  literal  sense.  That  is  the  root  and 
ground  of  all,  whereunto,  if  thou  cleave,  thou  canst 
never  err  ;  and  if  thou  leave  the  literal  sense,  thou 
canst  not  but  go  out  of  the  way."t  Few  will  to-day 
adopt  the  canon  of  Cocceius,  that  the  more  senses 
which  can  be  drawn  out  of  Scripture  the  better.  Few, 
who  turn  to  the  Kabbala  of  Henry  More,  will  not 
wonder  at  the  allegorizing  a  learned  Hebraist  could 
indulge  in.  Yet  it  is  the  defect  of  far  too  much 
of  our  exposition.  It  has  turned  plain  history  into 
prophecy.     It  mars  the  real  learning  of  a  scholar  like 


*  "Development  of  Christ.  Doct.,"  chap,  vi.,  5,  i. 

f  Tydnale,  "  Obedience  of  a  Christian  Man,"  p.  304.     Parker  ed. 


250  Epochs  in  Church  History, 

Hengstenberg.  We  have  it  in  one  shape  in  our  Angli- 
can divines,  who  quote  any  ingenious  conceit  of  the 
fathers,  and  can  turn  the  scarlet  cord  of  Rahab,  or  the 
ephod  of  the  high-priest  into  a  type  of  the  Christian 
priesthood.  We  have  it  again  in  the  evangelical  school 
of  men  like  Simeon,  who  declaim  against  Ritualism, 
but  follow  the  same  symbolism  in  the  interpretation 
of  the  Old  Testament.  Let  us  state  the  true  prin- 
ciple, that  none  may  mistake  our  meaning.  All  Chris- 
tian scholars  will  admit  typical  features  in  the  Hebrew 
worship,  and  prophetic  passages  which  clearly  point 
to  the  Christ  of  the  New  Covenant.  But  all  such 
figurative  portions  are  intelligible  as  such.  If  our 
typology  be  m.ade  to  turn  any  natural  fact  or  incident 
into  a  mystic  meaning,  it  robs  the  Scripture  of  its 
whole  historic  truth.  Nothing  has  done  greater  wrong 
to  the  Word  of  God  than  the  exegesis  which  has  built 
a  fanciful  Christology  out  of  any  plain  psalm  of  David, 
or  any  rite  of  the  temple  worship.  It  has  not  only 
been  the  source  of  every  fancy,  but  it  has  led  to  much 
of  that  dishonest  spirit  which  ''palters  with  us  in  a 
double  sense."  We  recognize  at  once  its  unsoundness 
in  the  fantastic  system  of  Swedenborg,  who  found  in 
Scripture,  as  Origen  did,  a  threefold  meaning — literal, 
spiritual,  and  celestial ;  yet  it  is  hard  to  know  why 
three  senses  are  not  as  reasonable  as  two.  We  may 
excuse  the  early  methods  of  the  fathers  ;  but  it  is 
astounding  to-day,  when  a  Christian  scholar  forces  on 


The  Aim  and  Influence  of  Biblical  Criticism,    251 

the  Word  of  God  that  style  of  exposition.  Criticism 
can  admit  no  such  mystical  canon.  It  bows  in  rev- 
erence before  the  spiritual  mysteries  of  revelation ; 
but  it  will  not  distort  its  plain  truth  by  the  guesswork 
of  a  human  fancy. 

We  can  now  pass  to  the  second  marked  feature  in 
the  history  of  Biblical  interpretation,  which  I  have 
called  the  dogmatic  principle.  It  was  undoubtedly  a 
step  forward  when  the  mystic  and  fanciful  spirit  gave 
place  to  the  unity  of  system,  as  it  had  developed  in  the 
Latin  Church.  The  law  which  reigned  in  the  exegesis 
of  its  schools  was  the  analogia  fidci.  Now  there  is  as- 
suredly a  unity  of  truth  in  the  Scriptures,  a  doctrinal 
basis,  by  which  we  may  study  the  meaning  of  its  sev- 
eral parts.  But  the  abuse  of  the  principle  lies,  first, 
in  forgetting  that  the  Bible  is  given  in  no  scientific 
form,  but  in  history,  poetry,  gospel,  and  epistle.  If 
theology  change  its  natural  expression  Into  logical 
proof-texts,  it  destroys  the  whole  character  of  revela- 
tion as  a  living  history.  But  it  is  yet  worse  when  it 
substitutes  for  the  true  analogy  of  faith  the  later  dog- 
matic system  of  one  age,  and  so  Interprets  the  ideas  of 
St.  Paul,  or  the  truth  of  Christ's  own  Gospel,  by  the 
controversial  dialect  of  the  schools.  It  was  precisely 
this  style  of  exegesis  which  became  the  fixed  method 
of  the  Latin  doctors.  All  the  living  pages  of  the  New 
Testament  were  used  to  sustain  the  definitions  of  the 
scholastic  metaphysics  that  had  grown  since  Augustine. 


252  Epochs  in  Church  History, 

Every  dogma,  like  that  of  the'  supremacy  of  Peter,  or 
the  transubstantiation  of  the  elements,  could  have  its 
scriptural  texts,  torn  from  their  real  connection.  There 
could  be  no  criticism  in  such  a  method.  It  was  against 
this  scholastic  abuse  that  Protestantism  declared  the 
supremacy  of  Scripture.  Luther  touched  the  very 
point  when  he  rejected  the  analogia  fidei^  and  claimed 
the  analogia  Scripturce  sacrce.  This  pretended  rule 
of  faith  was,  in  his  quaint  phrase,  *'a  rover  and  a 
chamois-hunter." 

And  it  is  this  false  dogmatic  tendency  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  Bible,  which  a  true  criticism  must 
correct  in  Protestant  as  well  as  Roman  scholasticism. 
We  need  not  gather  the  examples  of  it  to  convince 
any  clear-sighted  scholar.  The  habit  of  citing  dis- 
jointed texts  of  Scripture  as  proofs  of  doctrine  has 
often  led  to  the  worst  sophistry.  Poetry  has  been 
hardened  into  logical  proposition,  and  the  language 
of  a  familiar  letter  been  wrested  from  its  simple  mean- 
ing. Many  a  discourse  on  reprobation  has  been  rung 
out  of  the  Hebrew  phrase,  "  The  Lord  hardened 
Pharaoh's  heart ;  "  the  natural  outburst  of  the  Psalm- 
ist, "  Behold,  I  was  shapen  in  wickedness,"  has  been 
tortured  into  a  theological  statement  of  total  de- 
pravity ;  and  the  most  unscriptural  dogmas  have  been 
defended  as  holy  mysteries  by  the  verse,  ''Thou  art  a 
God  that  hidest  thyself."  But  these  are  only  scattered 
instances.     We  may  well  say  that  almost  all  the  great 


TJie  Aim  and  Infliience  of  Biblical  Criticism.     253 

controversies  are  simply  colossal  proofs  of  the  same 
vice.  If  we  read  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  by  the 
light  of  real  criticism,  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  our 
metaphysics  of  divine  decrees,  but  it  speaks  of  the 
grand  catholic  fact  of  the  calling  of  all  as  redeemed 
in  Christ,  instead  of  a  small  pedigree  of  circumcised 
Jews  ;  yet  its  sense  has  been  lost  by  the  two  equally 
mistaken  schools  of  Calvin  and  Arminius.  If  we  take 
the  whole  question  of  baptismal  regeneration,  the 
simple  word  of  Christ  to  Nicodemus,  declaring  a  king- 
dom of  more  spiritual  gifts  than  John  taught  in  bap- 
tism by  water,  has  been  looked  at  through  the  sacra- 
mental theory  of  the  scholastic.  Stanley  has  lately 
shown  that  the  classic  text  for  absolution  in  the 
Gospels  is  no  more  than  the  mistaken  phrase  of  the 
Rabbis,  Avho  meant  by  ''binding  and  loosing"  the 
action  of  their  courts  of  law.  It  is  so  with  the  treat- 
ment of  the  Scripture  on  every  side.  Its  real  unity 
and  harmony  must  be  found  by  an  honest  criticism  of 
its  own  pages,  not  an  artificial  system.  Nor  need  w^e 
wonder,  when  it  has  been  so  often  distorted  by  dog- 
matic methods,  that  a  keen  thinker,  like  Mr.  Matthew 
Arnold,  should  try  to  exclude  all  its  doctrine,  and 
treat  it  as  a  literature  which  has  in  it  only  a  moral 
element.  If  we  will  meet  this  brilliant  paradox,  we 
must  accept  its  partial  truth,  and  show  that  we  do 
not  confound  its  teaching  of  the  personal,  living 
God,   its    real   history   and  real    poetry,  v/ith    either 


254  EpocJis  in   CJitirch  History. 

his  barren  ethics   or  our   former  modes  of  interpre- 
tation. 

Our  view  of  biblical  science  can  now  be  clearly  un- 
derstood. It  has  been  a  growth  out  of  these  crude 
but  natural  stages  to  a  riper  method.  What,  then,  is 
the  change  which  a  later  criticism  has  introduced  ? 
Simply  the  correction  of  such  arbitrary  rules,  and  the 
study  of  the  Scriptures  in  their  own  direct  meaning. 
Nothing  of  their  truth  has  been  lost  in  the  process. 
The  spiritual,  the  mysterious  in  the  revelation  of  God 
is  as  fully  recognized,  although  the  mystical  principle 
is  not  forced  on  its  plain  history.  The  doctrinal  truth 
is  not  forgotten,  because  Scripture  is  not  studied  as  if 
it  were  a  treatise  of  systematic  divinity.  In  a  word, 
modern  biblical  science  is  nothing  else  than  the 
method  which  by  degrees  has  grown  out  of  the  more 
thorough  analysis  of  its  language,  structure,  and 
design.  In  that  view  I  will  sum  the  results  of  this 
critical  study,  as  it  concerns  the  character  of  the  Bible 
itself,  before  I  proceed  to  its  influence  on  theology 
and  Church  polity.  It  would  be  interesting,  in  a  fuller 
sketch,  to  speak  of  the  rich  evidence  which  our 
researches  into  the  history  and  archaeology  of  the 
East  have  given  to  many  of  the  facts  of  Scripture. 
We  have  far  more  reason  to  trust  than  to  fear  the 
results  of  science.  But  my  task  is  not  so  much  with 
the  literature  of  the  subject  as  with  the  principles  of 
criticism.     The    first    result   of  such   study,   then,   in 


The  Aim  and  Influence  of  Biblical  Criticism.     255 

teaching  us  to  examine  its  real  structure,  is  to  give  us 
the  true  idea  of  the  unity  and  design  of  Revelation. 
The  Bible  is  not  to  a  Christian  scholar,  as  it  has  been 
too  often  regarded,  a  book  of  arbitrary  teachings  on  all 
problems  of  doctrine,  or  natural  science  or  morals.  It 
is  given  for  the  revelation  to  man  of  the  one  grand  fact 
of  a  personal,  living  God  in  human  history ;  and  we 
study  his  word,  not  as  we  do  a  systematic  treatise,  but 
in  its  living  form. 

If  in  such  a  light  we  turn  to  the  Old  Testament,  we 
have  the  record  of  a  nation,  the  development  of  the 
national  life  from  its  patriarchal  beginnings  to  its 
Mosaic  legislation,  its  kingdom,  and  its  later  sacerdo- 
tal state.  Its  chronicle  has  on  it  the  stamp  of  all  early 
writing,  from  a  period  of  crude  ideas  of  nature  and 
man,  from  a  childlike  style  of  history  to  a  later  and 
clearer  knowledge.  Its  social  morality  has  the  natural 
growth  from  polygamy,  slavery,  and  heroic  barbarism 
to  the  milder  type  of  civilization.  Yet  there  is  no  less 
the  evidence  of  a  divine  character  throughout  the 
whole  record.  It  is  this  very  criticism  which  enables 
us  to  see  this  wonderful  and  unique  feature.  The 
knowledge  of  one  God,  Creator  and  Lawgiver;  the' 
pure  ethical  teaching  of  the  Mosaic  code ;  the  social 
and  religious  fabric  built  on  it,  and  abiding  through 
all  the  epochs  of  the  national  growth  in  sharpest  con- 
trast with  the  idolatry  and  vice  of  the  people ;  th 
Providential  history  amidst  the  changes  of  the  outer 


256  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

world,  all  these  stamp  on  the  record  the  Indelible 
proof  of  a  supernatural  design.  Even  the  keenest 
criticism  confesses  this  fact.  The  admission  of  Arnold 
of  the  moral  supremacy  of  this  religion  is  the  best 
answer  to  his  absurd  denial  of  a  personal  God  In 
Jewish  history.  And  It  is  precisely  this  result  of  our 
criticism  which  gives  us  the  ground  of  agreement 
with  the  just  demands  of  science  or  historic  study. 
We  deny  by  the  most  scientific  proofs  the  a  priori 
theory  of  all  who  reject  the  divine  origin  of  such  a 
revelation.  But  we  need  not,  with  this  knowledge  of 
its  essential  truth,  have  any  perplexity  as  to  the  ques- 
tions geology  may  ask  of  the  Mosaic  cosmogony,  or 
historic  criticism  as  to  the  structure  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. If  there  be  any  who  hold  that  all  these  details 
can  be  squared  with  science,  we  leave  them  to  the  test 
of  honest  criticism.  All  we  demand  is,  that  the  de- 
fence of  revelation  shall  not  be  endangered  by  resting 
it  on  any  questionable  ground.  And  still  more,  in 
regard  of  the  morality  of  the  Old  Testament,  we  are 
no  longer  perplexed  by  the  barbarity  of  a  Jael,  or  the 
slaughter  of  the  Canaanites,  or  the  sins  of  David.  We 
do  not  look  in  the  earlier  time  for  that  pure  social 
spirit  which  only  the  teaching  of  the  Gospel  could 
give.  It  is  a  far  higher  reverence  we  pay,  when  we 
thus  learn  Its  divine  truth,  yet  recognize  In  it  a  faith- 
ful record  of  the  growth  of  Israel,  as  fully  in  its 
mental  and  moral  stages  as  in  Its  childlike  ritual.    We 


The  Aim  and  Influence  of  Biblical  Criticism.      257 

know  its  meaning  as  the  education  of  a  race  for  a  per- 
fect Christianity.  Such  is  the  method  which  our  best 
scholarship  has  carried  into  the  treatment  of  the  Old 
Testament ;  and  whatever  may  be  the  differences 
between  the  brilliant,  often  over-ingenious,  researches 
of  Ewald,  and  more  sober  scholars  like  Bleek,  the 
method  has  wrought  the  most  real  results.  Its  history 
is  history ;  its  poetry  is  poetry.  Its  prophecy  is  in- 
terpreted by  the  great  historic  law  of  connection 
between  a  preparatory  religion  and  that  of  Him  who 
is  the  *'  fulness  of  times,"  as  we  see  the  fruit  in  the 
seed.  The  Old  Testament  is  a  far  more  living  book, 
since  it  has  become  no  longer  a  volume  of  allegories, 
but  is  studied  in  its  real  structure. 

If  we  turn  now  to  the  book  of  the  New  Covenant, 
we  have  the  like  method.  As  we  open  the  Gospels 
and  learn  their  formation,  it  is  the  person  and  life  of 
Jesus  Christ,  the  kingdom  he  established,  which  we 
see  in  the  record  of  living  history.  Each  of  these  four 
biographies  reveals  to  us  the  character  of  that  Jewish 
time,  the  ideas  of  a  Messiah  and  a  Messianic  reign  ; 
and  we  trace  in  their  differences  the  varied  points  of 
viev/  in  which  the  same  wonderful  person  appeared 
to  those  who  saw  and  heard  him.  Yet  it  is  here  we 
find  the  real  unity  of  the  books.  It  is  not  that  of  a 
mechanical  Avork  of  art,  or  of  a  dogmatic  treatise  on 
the  creed  and  polity  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ  ;  but  we 
see  it  as  it  speaks  in  the  incarnate  wisdom  of  the  Son 


258  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

of  God,  and  as  his  truth  shapes  itself  into  the  common 
faith  of  believers.  All  these  portraits  agree  in  the 
great  features  of  his  character  ;  all  unite  in  the  sub- 
stantial facts  of  his  teaching  and  mission.  It  is 
the  invaluable  fruit  of  such  criticism,  that  it  has 
taught  us  to  find  more  than  a  formal  repertory  of 
pf-oof-texts  in  the  Gospels.  The  divinity  of  Christ, 
his  redeeming  sacrifice,  his  gift  of  the  Comforter,  are 
no  longer  theories,  but  realities,  which  we  know  more 
truly  in  their  historic  meaning.  We  have  no  difficulty 
in  regard  to  the  lesser  discrepancies  of  the  narrative. 
His  life  is  greater  than  all  books.  And  it  is  here  we 
have  the  best  answer  to  all  modern  errors.  I  cannot 
more  clearly  illustrate  my  meaning  than  by  a  reference 
to  a  weighty  question  of  our  day.  It  is  the  effort  of 
the  school  of  which  Renan  is  the  expositor,  to  under- 
mine the  authority  of  the  fourth  Gospel  ;  and  the 
strength  of  his  objection  lies  in  its  difference  from  the 
whole  tone  of  the  Synoptics,  which  marks  it  in  his 
eyes  as  the  work  of  a  later,  more  speculative  time, 
instead  of  the  simpler  Jewish  teaching  of  a  Matthew. 
Yet  the  very  study  of  the  Gospels  in  connection  with 
the  mind  of  their  time  reveals  the  fact,  that  the  lofty 
truth  of  the  word  of  God  is  to  be  found  not  merely  in 
Platonic  or  Alexandrian  sources,  but  in  the  doctrinal 
faith  of  Palestine.'^     The  Logos  of  the  fourth  Gospel 

*  Nicolas,  "  Hist.  d.  doctr.  d.  Juifs,"  p.  ii.  ch.  2. 


TJic  Aim  and  Influence  of  Biblical  Criticism.     259 

is  no  more  a  later  conception  tlian  the  Messiah  and 
Prophet  whom  the  Synoptics  portray.  We  recognize 
in  the  more  spiritual  insight  of  St.  John,  or  the  more 
simple  page  of  St.  Matthew,  the  same  divine  man  ; 
yet  in  the  last  of  the  Gospels  we  see  the  transition 
from  the  Jewish  faith  to  the  more  perfect  truth  of  the 
Word  made  flesh.  If  we  thus  read  the  harmony  of 
the  book,  we  need  fear  no  verbal  criticism. 

But,  again,  the  same  method  has  opened  tjie  unity 
of  the  Apostolic  history.  Any  who  recalls  the  ''  Plant- 
ing and  Training  of  the  Church,"  by  Neander,  one  of 
the  first  essays  in  this  line,  will  not  forget  the  clue  it 
gave  to  the  tangled  web'  of  exposition.  It  has  been 
the  task  of  the  best  scholars  since  to  study  in  those 
epistles,  so  varied  in  tone  of  thought,  their  living  con- 
nection with  the  growth  of  the  early  body.  Criticism 
has  modified  the  old  notion  of  a  Harmonia  Evangelica, 
such  as  Bishop  Bull  wrote.  We  can  no  longer  quote 
that  age  as  if  it  were  one  of  full-grown  theology  and 
Church  polity.  But  as  we  read  there  the  long  strife 
of  Jewish  and  Gentile  opinion  ;  as,  above  all,  we  trace 
in  St.  Paul  the  constructive  idea  of  the  time,  that 
question  of  law  and  grace,  of  a  narrow  tradition  and 
a  Christian  faith,  which  must  be  settled  for  the  unity 
of  the  growing  Church,  we  gain  a  real  knowledge.  It 
has  taught  us  to  find  in  these  epistles  all  the  steps  of 
that  first  formative  age  through  these  mental  and 
moral  struggles  toward  an  organic  life.     This  is  our 


26o  Epochs  in  CJmrch  History, 

positive  fruit.  And  if  such  a  criticism  has  shaken  the 
validity  of  a  few  minor  epistles,  if  we  do  not  now 
quote  the  Apocalypse  as  a  literal  prediction  against 
the  Papacy,  we  have  learned  more  surely  the  substan- 
tial wholeness  of  the  canon.  It  is  this  very  study 
which,  in  showing  us  the  formation  of  the  early  Church, 
answers  the  latest  rationalism.  Its  whole  fabric  rests 
on  the  assumption  that  the  differences  of  the  epistles, 
the  Gngstic  allusions,  the  sharp  strifes  of  Jewish  and 
Gentile  ideas,  prove  a  later  origin.  Such  an  array  might 
well  stagger  our  traditional  interpreters.  But  if  we 
have  read  truly  the  character  of  that  age,  we  have  found 
in  it  the  germs  of  all  the  after-errors,  and  have  learned 
that  out  of  the  battle  came  the  unity  of  the  body. 

But  I  cannot  dwell  longer  on  the  detail  of  the 
method.  It  is  enough  if  I  have  shown  what  such 
criticism  means.  Nor  will  it  be  necessary  for  me  to 
touch  at  length  on  any  of  the  theoretical  questions  so 
often  mingled  with  this  subject.  I  have  not  consid- 
ered the  doctrine  of  inspiration.  If  this  whole  line 
of  reasoning  be  clear,  it  will  place  that  question  on  its 
real  ground  ;  for  it  will  show  that  a  genuine  criticism 
gives  us  a  conviction  of  the  divine  worth  of  the  Bible, 
far  stronger  than  all  others.  All  theories  of  mechani- 
cal dictation  or  verbal  infallibility  were  the  natural 
product  of  the  mystical  and  dogmatic  methods.  If 
we  have  learned  the  method  of  a  true  criticism,  we 
know  the  inspired,  essential  truth  of  the  Word  ;  and 


The  Aim  and  Influence  of  Biblical  Criticism.    261 

if  we  have  not  so  learned  it,  no  theory  will  help  us 
against  the  attacks  of  a  false  learning.  But  it  would 
be  a  better  evidence  of  what  I  have  said,  and  a  better 
answer  to  those  who  look  doubtfully  on  the  growth  of 
biblical  science,  if  I  had  space  to  add  a  sketch  of  its 
results.  I  can  only  sum  it  in  a  few  words,  and  I  shall 
take  my  example  from  that  country  Avhere  the  strife 
of  neology  and  evangelical  belief  has  had  its  fullest 
career.  In  the  church  of  Luther  we  can  see  all  the 
steps  in  the  history  of  criticism  which  I  have  de- 
scribed. The  neology  of  Germany  began  as  a  revolt 
against  the  dogmatic  methods  of  the  time  ;  it  ripened 
from  the  day  of  Paulus  into  the  rationalism  which  fol- 
lowed the  critical  system  of  Kant,  and  narrowed 
Christianity  to  a  code  of  ethics.  It  passed  again,  with 
the  more  brilliant  Pantheism  of  Strauss,  into  the  philo- 
sophic theory  that  found  in  the  life  of  Christ  a  beau- 
tiful myth  of  the  past.  Yet  step  by  step  there  grew 
within  the  Church  the  deeper  and  devout  criticism  of 
the  Scripture.  It  was  against  the  facts  of  Christian 
history  that  the  mythical  theory  was  broken  in  pieces. 
We  have  to-day  the  successors  of  Strauss  in  the  schol- 
ars of  Tubingen,  who  claim  that  they  have  found  the 
method  of  historic  criticism.  Yet  it  is  seldom  under- 
derstood  by  those  who  look  with  fear  on  their  subtle 
learning,  that  so  far  from  a  step  forward,  their  method 
was  a  confession  of  the  failure  of  the  mythical  view. 
They  have  been  forced  to  admit  the   historic   basis  of 


262  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

Christianity.  They  take  now  the  last  ground  of  as- 
sault in  an  attempt,  by  a  keen  analysis  of  the  New 
Testament  books,  to  overturn  their  apostolic  origin. 
We  need  not  underrate  their  skill,  but  this  we  can 
justly  say,  that  a  fearless  inquiry  has  only  led  to  a 
sounder  faith.  Each  step  has  been  nearer  to  the  end. 
It  has  been  no  fruitless  struggle,  but  from  first  to  last 
the  gain  of  a  Christian  scholarship.  All  the  rich  con- 
tributions to  biblical  knowledge,  all  the  noblest  names 
on  the  side  of  German  evangelical  belief,  all  that  has 
passed  into  the  thought  of  our  time,  is  the  fruit  of  the 
long  conflict.  And  that  I  may  not  be  supposed  to 
write  in  this  my  unsustained  opinion,  I  beg  to  add  the 
words  of  Dorner,  which  sum  the  whole  question.  Af- 
ter a  full  statement  of  the  systems  of  Strauss  and 
Baur,  he  concludes  that  "  the  negative  criticism,  be- 
ginning with  the  Wolfenbiittel  fragments,  hastens  ir- 
resistibly to  round  its  circle.  The  mythical  hypothe- 
sis, even  in  its  more  modern  form,  the  moment  it  sets 
foot  on  the  ground  of  the  actual  history  of  Christ's 
words  and  deeds,  begins  to  destroy  its  own  founda- 
tions. Its  latest  phase  must  be  its  last."  '*  Evangel- 
ical faith  may  fearlessly  allow  its  full  rights  to  criti- 
cism, and  to  an  exegesis  now  no  longer  under 
tutelage.""^  Such  is  the  position  of  this  great  evan- 
gelical leader.     It   may  well  assure   us   of  the  simple 

*  Dorner,  Gesch.  d.  Prot.  Theol.  B.  3,  Th.  i. 


ihe  Awi  and  Influence  of  Biblical  Criticism.     263 

truth,  which  the  Christian  Church  should  have  learned 
long  ago,  that  biblical  study  has  everything  to  hope 
and  nothing  to  dread  from  the  progress  of  criticism. 

With  this  idea  of  a  biblical  science  we  are  now  ready 
to  understand  its  further  influence  in  the  growths  of 
Christian  learning  in  our  own  time.  It  is,  first  of  all, 
in  the  sphere  of  theology  that  I  wish  to  study  it,  as  the 
weightiest  of  questions  for  the  scholar.  To  know  the 
whole  result  of  modern  studies  we  must  look  a  mo- 
ment at  the  intrinsic  connection  of  theology  with  the 
sources  of  revelation.  It  is  the  necessary  work  of  the 
Church  to  set  forth  in  the  form  of  creeds  and  articles 
the  truths  given  in  the  Scripture,  not  only  because  they 
are  bulwarks  against  error,  but  because  there  is  a  unity 
and  harmony  in  these  truths  themselves.  Theology 
has  thus  its  orderly  growth  from  the  earliest  time,  as 
each  period  has  studied  more  deeply  the  sacred  word, 
and  has  brought  out  in  some  new  relation  to  the  men- 
tal and  spiritual  want  the  central  doctrines  of  the  Gos- 
pel. There  is  no  shallower  mistake  than  that  of  the 
sceptic  who  looks  back  on  the  gathered  systems  of  the 
Christian  past  as  an  empty  word-battle.  All  the  most 
earnest  conflicts  between  the  decaying  pagan  thought 
and  the  truths  of  God  in  relation  to  man,  are  embodied 
in  the  Nicene  symbol.  All  the  struggles  of  the  mind 
and  heart  of  Europe  are  written  in  the  confessions  of 
the  Reformed  churches.  But  while  this  is  true,  it  is 
to  be  remembered  that  the  great  danger  of  theology 


264  Epochs  in  C/mrch  History, 

is  always  to  mistake  the  empiric  doctrinal  system  of 
one  age  or  sect  for  the  Catholic  truth.  We  have  seen 
already  the  root  of  this  error  in  the  historic  sketch  of 
biblical  science  ;  but  it  maybe  read  at  large  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  Church.  The  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation 
became  at  last  a  metaphysical  formula,  and  the  rich 
theology  of  Augustine  was  frozen  into  the  definitions  of 
the  schools.  The  latter  dogmatism  of  the  Reformed 
communions,  when  the  original  life  of  the  Gospel  had 
been  fettered  by  its  schoolmen,  led  the  way  to  the  re- 
action of  neology.  And  hence  the  need  of  the  Church 
is  always  to  keep  alive  the  study  of  the  word  of  God, 
the  divine  truth  that  shall  guard  it  against  these  idols  of 
the  theological  cave.  If  our  religion  become  for  the 
body  of  teachers  or  believers  a  system  of  doctrinal  prop- 
ositions, it  has  lost  its  power.  Theology  must  be  a 
healthy  growth,  not  a  fungus  deposit  that  kills  the  tree. 
It  is  the  clear  recognition  of  this  principle,  which 
more  especially  in  our  time  is  working  out  the  truest 
and  largest  results.  One  of  its  marked  signs  is  the 
study  of  doctrinal  history,  which  we  may  justly  call  the 
fruit  of  the  last  half  century.  Our  best  thinkers  per- 
ceive, that  we  have  reached  the  point  where  the  sys- 
tems -of  the  past  must  be  studied  in  their  historic  law 
of  growth,  to  know  the  real  harmony.  Augustine  and 
Anselm,  Calvin  and  Lutlicr,  Twesten  and  Rothe  must 
be  measured  by  the  conditions  of  their  Christian  time. 
Yet  this  is  only  the  herald  of  a  deeper  want.     It  is  a 


The  Aim  and  Inflitence  of  Biblical  criticism.    265 

Biblical  theology  in  its  true  meaning,  toward  which 
both  our  critical  and  doctrinal  learning  aims.  I  do 
not  mean  that  mechanical  summary  of  the  doctrines 
of  Scripture  which  consists  in  arranging  its  texts  under 
certain  heads.  I  mean  that  study  of  its  whole  struct- 
ure, of  the  essential  character  of  the  Gospels,  of  the 
growth  of  Apostolic  thought  in  its  first  formative  time, 
which  shall  take  us  back  to  the  unity  of  Christian  faith 
before  the  aftergrowths  of  the  Church.  Such  a  study 
will  plant  us  on  the  foundations.  It  will  not  make  us 
prize  the  less  any  dogmatic  formations  of  the  past, 
but  rather  to  the  Christian  scholar  the  history  of  the- 
ology will  be  that  of  a  living  mind,  expounding  the 
divine,  inexhaustible  mind  of  Christ.  All  the  articles 
of  our  theology  will  be  seen  to  be  the  manifold  ex- 
pression of  the  one  truth  of  Revelation,  God  in  Christ, 
reconciling  the  world  to  himself.  This  Biblical  science 
alone  can  bring  unity  into  our  discordant  confessions. 
We  do  not  want  a  new  formula  of  concord,  which 
seeks  compromise  in  some  more  subtle  definings.  As 
our  divines  have  learned  to  study  St.  Paul's  view  of 
justification  by  its  own  light  more  than  through  the 
spectacles  of  Calvin  or  Arminius,  to  measure  the  sys- 
tem of  Augustine  from  the  true  centre  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, not  force  his  theory  of  decrees  or  sacramental 
regeneration  on  the  Gospel,  they  have  learned  our 
substantial  agreement.  We  have  to-day  a  renewed 
discussion  of  the  Atonement.     It  does  not  show  th^t 


266  Epochs  ill  Church  History. 

this  central  truth  is  in  danger,  but  we  are  only  learn- 
ing not  to  define  by  the  theology  of  Anselm  alone 
that  mystery  of  a  divine  love  which  speaks  in  the 
sacrifice  of  the  Son  of  God.  And  as  the  theology  of 
the  past  will  thus  find  its  impartial  test  in  such  a  study 
of  the  Word,  so  the  true  aim  of  a  Christian  theology 
to-day  will  be  clear.  Critical  learning  will  not  destroy 
any  true  doctrinal  teaching  of  former  times.  But  the 
problems  that  now  call  out  the  deepest  thought  of  the 
Church  are  of  more  moment  than  any  before,  because 
they  come  from  the  special  relation  of  revealed  truth 
to  the  whole  field  of  science  in  this  age.  They  touch 
the  life  of  Christianity.  It  is  for  the  personality  of 
God,  the  agreement  of  a  supernatural  revelation  with 
law,  the  need  of  religion  as  the  ground  of  moral  sanc- 
tions, the  origin  and  destiny  of  the  race,  the  hope  of 
a  future  existence,  that  we  are  called  to  battle  with  a 
Pyrrhonism  which  shelters  itself  under  the  mask  of 
scientific  truth.  We  must  surely  know  that  if  we  are 
to  meet  the  Agnosticism  of  this  day,  it  can  only  be  by  a 
thorough  mastery  of  the  method  as  well  as  the  true  re- 
sults of  science.  It  should  be  enough  to  warn  us  of 
our  most  fatal  mistake,  when  we  find  Herbert  Spencer 
citing  Mansel  as  an  oracle,  and  building  his  whole 
system  of  denial  on  the  theological  ground  which  that 
ingenious  champion  of  the  faith  thought  the  strong- 
hold of  revelation.  If  Christian  theology  will  have 
again  its  mastery,  as  in  former  times,  over  the  minds 


The  Aim  and  Influence  of  Biblical  Criticism.      267 

of  men,  it  will  not  be  by  claiming  that  the  ''  limits  of 
religious  thought  "  forbid  us  to  apply  to  Scripture  even 
the  moral  laws,  which  the  author  of  revelation  has 
written  on  the  conscience.  It  will  not  be  by  defend- 
ing past  modes  of  scholastic  thought  with  crude  ex- 
egesis. But  it  will  be  by  accepting  all  that  a  sound 
criticism  has  given  us,  and  recognizing  the  fact  that 
the  abiding  truths  of  Christianity  have  more  power 
than  ever,  if  they  speak  in  the  language  that  convinces 
the  intelligence,  the  conscience,  and  the  life.  This  is 
our  want.  If  we  can  teach  men  to  read  in  their  Bibles 
no  sealed  deposit  of  our  theolog>%  but  the  plain  fact 
of  a  personal  Creator,  a  God  in  history,  a  revelation  of 
divine  love  and  duty  in  His  Son,  we  need  not  fear  the 
atheism  of  to-day.  And  this  is  my  earnest  conviction, 
that  all  our  noblest  aims  are  guiding  us  toward  this 
end.  This  study  of  the  essential  character  of  revelation 
shall  give  the  new  life  to  theology,  and  make  it  again, 
as  it  has  been  in  the  past,  able  to  restore  the  age  from 
doubt  to  belief. 

Yet  it  is  not  only  in  the  direct  sphere  of  theological 
learning  that  I  recognize  this  influence  of  biblical  criti- 
cism. I  must  pass  briefly  to  its  relations  with  other 
subjects,  of  as  deep  interest  to  the  Christian  thought 
of  our  time.  The  history  of  the  Church,  in  its  bear- 
ings on  all  the  questions  of  its  nature  and  polity,  is 
one  of  the  weightiest  of  these.  It  is,  indeed,  among 
the  best  fruits  of  this  Christian  age,  hardly  older  than 


268  Epochs  in  Church  History, 

the  immortal  work  of  Neander,  that  we  have  begun  to 
read  in  the  history  of  our  religion  more  than  the  Latin 
idea  of  an  ecclesiastical  state,  or  the  too  common  one 
among  Protestant  writers  of  a  series  of  dark  ages,  fol- 
lowed by  an  anarchy  of  sect.  We  see  in  it  now  the 
historic  law  of  a  Divine  order,  a  religion  linked  in  every 
step  of  its  life,  through  its  Nicene  period,  its  mediaeval 
feudalism,  its  awakening  to  knowledge  and  freedom  in 
the  Reformation,  with  all  the  growths  of  Christian  civ- 
ilization. But  it  is  only  in  the  more  critical  study  of 
the  New  Testament  itself  we  can  find  the  ground- 
work of  Church  history.  Just  as  this  study  leads  us 
back  from  the  manifold  partial  systems  of  doctrine  to 
the  living  truth  of  the  Gospel,  it  leads  us  from  the  frag- 
mentary polities  to  the  original  fellowship  of  Christ. 
We  learn  from  it  that  the  Church  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment was  indeed  an  organic  body,  not  a  mere  move- 
ment of  Jewish  religious  life  ;  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  no 
copy  of  the  theocracy  of  Ezra,  with  its  priestly  caste, 
or  temple  service,  but  a  divine  germ  meant  to  grow,  like 
all  institutions,  in  the  soil  of  the  world,  and  take  shape 
according  to  the  conditions  of  all  social  growth.  The 
critical  method  of  our  time,  as  I  have  proved,  has  shown 
us  the  gradual  way  in  which  each  visible  feature  of 
the  Apostolic  body,  its  ministry,  its  creed,  its  worship, 
passed  into  fixed  shape  from  the  freer  life  of  the  first 
household.  Such  a  study,  then,  corrects  by  the  most 
impartial  tests  the  common  error  of  all  sectarian  theo- 


The  Ann  and  Influence  of  Biblical  Criticism,    269 

rists.  Romanism  is  built  on  the  a  priori  notion  of  a  visi- 
ble ecclesia,  and  can  construct  the  whole  supremacy  of 
Peter  out  of  one  misread  verse  in  the  Gospels.  An- 
glicanism follows  the  same  method.  It  reasons  from  its 
assumption  of  the  need  of  a  succession  to  the  facts, 
and  so  can  readily  turn  the  brief  letter  of  Paul  to 
Timothy  into  a  treatise  on  the  divine  origin  and  per- 
petuity of  the  Episcopate.  But  as  no  chain  is  stronger 
than  its  weakest  link,  so  the  weakest  link  in  this  case 
is  where  it  should  be  strongest,  in  the  degree  of  the 
New  Testament  evidence.  Nor  is  the  error  less  with 
the  Presbyterian  who  will  find  a  divine  law  in  parity, 
the  Independent  who  thinks  the  Kingdom  of  God  a 
democracy,  or  the  Baptist  who  insists  on  immersion, 
or  adult  baptism,  because  they  were  the  usage  of  the 
infant  Church.  All  such  theories  vanish  before  the 
criticism  which  teaches  us  to  rest  no  system  on  a  few 
slender  hints,  but  to  apply  the  laws  of  history.  Yet 
let  none  be  alarmed  at  the  result,  for  such  criticism 
gives  more  than  it  takes  away.  It  is  argument  enough 
for  the  Episcopate,  when  we  can  trace  in  it  the  nor- 
mal growth  of  the  early  diocesan  Church.  It  is  enough 
that  infant  baptism  was  the  natural  form  of  the  house- 
hold religion,  whether  before  or  after  the  Apostolic 
age.  We  can  recognize  the  unity  in  essential  faith 
and  order  of  the  first  believers,  while  we  know  the 
plastic  character  of  the  time.  Our  New  Testament 
study  is  more  and  more  bringing  us  into  the  fellow- 


270  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

ship  of  the  Christian  body,  as  we   thus  measure  the 
real  worth  of  primitive  facts. 

And  thus  we  may  pass  to  the  last  thought,  which 
encloses  all  in  itself.  The  influence  of  such  a  biblical 
science  will  be  toward  the  growth  of  that  real  Chris- 
tian life  which  is  the  end  of  all  Christian  knowledge. 
As  our  studies  bring  us  nearer  to  that  divine  yet  hu- 
man Person  in  whom  the  Gospels  centre,  we  shall 
learn  more  and  more  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is 
larger  than  any  symbolic  books  or  any  ecclesiastical 
order,  and  can  only  be  fulfilled  as  the  life  of  the  incar- 
nate Lord  is  embodied  in  the  life  of  redeemed  human- 
ity. Theology  is  queen  of  the  sciences,  but  the  unity 
of  the  spirit  is  the  substance  of  the  symbol.  The 
Church  is  the  school-master,  but  its  purpose  is  to  up- 
build the  ''  perfect  man.*'  And  this  is  the  view  of 
Christianity  which  shall  meet  the  most  earnest  inqui- 
ries of  our  time.  It  wants  this  kingdom  of  God,  which 
was  meant  by  its  Author  to  be  the  fellowship  of  men 
redeemed  in  Christ,  and  which  alone  can  solve  the 
present  riddles,  more  real  than  all  disputes  of  creed  or 
ecclesiastical  polity,  the  education  of  the  social  con- 
science, the  unity  of  severed  classes,  the  reconcilement 
of  our  culture  with  a  reverent  faith,  the  aims  of  peace 
and  wise  benevolence.  If  we  have  learned  this  need 
of  our  time,  we  have  learned  the  noblest  work  given 
to  the  scholar  or  the  Christian  man.  And  as  we  study 
our  subject  in  this  light,  we  shall  perceive  it  to  be  the 


The  Aim  and  Influence  of  Biblical  Criticism,     271 

deepest  principle  of  the  Gospel,  that  this  ethical  and 
living  result  should  be  the  latest.  It  may  seem  at  first 
a  strange  law,  but  the  more  we  examine  it,  it  will  be 
found  to  have  its  correspondence  with  all  history. 
Revelation  has  obeyed  the  order  of  intellectual  and 
moral  growth.  It  has  cost  the  world  its  nineteen  ages 
to  ripen  the  germ  planted  by  the  divine  sower  in  the 
soil.  There  was  needed  first  the  period  of  theological 
training  in  Greek  and  Latin  Christianity,  until  it 
reached  the  unity  of  doctrine  and  law.  There  was 
needed  next  the  critical  period  of  a  Protestant  thought, 
by  which  it  reached  the  utmost  point  of  Christian 
knowledge.  There  is  needed  now  the  outcome  from 
the  strifes  of  system  to  the  positive  unity  of  truth.  It 
is  the  life  of  Christ,  the  living  application  of  the  Gos- 
pel that  He  revealed,  the  real  kingdom  of  a  divine 
humanity,  which  is  now  to  show  to  the  world  the  fruit 
hidden  in  the  seed,  but  asking  all  these  processes  for 
its  growth.  The  study  of  the  original  sources  of  Chris- 
tianity is  one  of  the  great  signs  of  the  time  that  we 
are  on  the  very  threshold  of  this  best  period. 

If,  then,  my  view  of  the  aim  and  influence  of  our 
biblical  science  be  true,  if  we  can  see  its  relations  with 
the  most  real  aims  of  our  modern  scholarship,  we  may 
surely  accept  the  present  state  of  learning,  in  spite  of 
all  its  drawbacks,  with  faith  in  the  result.  I  have  not 
hidden  its  dangers  or  its  defects.  It  would,  of  course, 
be  useless  to  expect  that  any  who  look  on  all  inquiry 


2J2  Epochs  in  CJiurch  History. 

in  criticism  or  theology  as  beyond  the  sphere  of 
science,  will  agree  with  such  views.  But  enough  if  I 
can  aid  those  who,  in  a  time  of  much  confusion,  are 
seeking  the  true  harmony  between  the  abiding  ground 
of  revelation  and  the  changing  growths  of  doctrinal 
interpretation.  Nor  can  I  more  fitly  close  this  essay 
than  by  a  last  citation  from  the  scholar  who  has 
written  so  nobly  the  history  of  Protestant  theology. 
*'  It  may  be  said  that  modern  theology  and  literature 
in  this  country  show  a  riper  stage  of  exegesis  than  in 
any  former  time.  Not  only  have  the  laws  of  interpre- 
tation been  examined  and  a  science  of  hermeneutics 
formed  ;  not  only  are  the  auxiliary  studies  of  criticism, 
history,  geography  in  advance,  and  the  text  more 
clearly  settled,  but  the  exposition  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment has  within  these  forty  years  had  a  wonderful 
progress.  The  masters  of  modern  exegesis  are  thus 
working  together  toward  a  biblical  theology,  which, 
though  a  historical  science,  by  no  means  displacing 
dogmatics  or  ethics,  will  hold  up  to  these  the  real  and 
in  many  regards  more  complete  model,  wherein  they 
have  their  standard."  It  is  enough  for  me  that  my 
line  of  argument  is  confirmed  by  so  unquestioned  a 
master ;  and  I  can  only  hope  that  the  growth  he  has 
seen  in  his  own  land  may  encourage  all  Christian 
scholars  who  are  working  for  the  same  true  end. 

And  let  me,  then,  say  one  last  word  to  my  younger 
brethren,  about  to  be  set  apart  at   the  close  of  their 


The  Aim  and  Influence  of  Biblical  Criticism.     273 

studies  as  ministers  of  what  the  greatest  of  Apostles 
calls  the  *'  health-giving  teaching  "  of  Christ.  It  is 
the  holiest  of  tasks  to  which  we  are  pledged  as  de- 
fenders of  his  Gospel  ;  and  above  all,  in  this  day, 
when,  as  never  before,  it  is  to  battle  with  the  boldest 
unbelief  as  well  as  the  boldest  superstition.  Let  me 
beg  you  to  remember  that  our  victory  depends,  be- 
yond all  else,  on  our  faith  in  the  divine  power  of  reve- 
lation itself.  It  is  not  distrust  of  science,  nor  blind 
adherence  to  traditional  methods,  but  the  honest, 
pure,  steadfast  love  of  the  truth,  that  shall  make  us 
such  scholars,  such  teachers,  such  apostles  as  the 
Church  needs.  If  you  will  be  true  to  that  principle 
of  Evangelical  faith  which  has  been  the  life  of  this 
venerable  school,  you  will  leave  to  the  Romanist,  or 
the  ecclesiastic  of  like  type,  their  crumbling  earth- 
works, and  ask  no  other  strength  than  His  who  is  the 
living  Word  of  God.  I  invoke  on  your  minds  and 
hearts  that  Spirit  which  guides  into  all  truth.  I  ask 
for  you  and  for  us  in  fuller  measure  this  knowledge, 
which,  as  it  begins  with  the  revelation  of  the  Father 
in  His  Son,  shall  end  in  what  passeth  knowledge,  our 
union  with  Him  whom  to  know  is  eternal  life. 

12* 


THE 
CHRISTIAN    CONSCIENCE 

AND    THE 

STUDY  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES. 


It  is  an  old  question  I  bring  before  you,  as  old  as  the 
first  day  of  the  Reformation,  when  the  translation  of 
the  Bible  was  the  leader  of  intellectual  as  well  as  re- 
ligious freedom  ;  yet  as  new,  and  perhaps  more  weighty, 
in  its  connections  with  modern  thought.  What  is  the 
right,  and  what  the  law  of  the  Christian  conscience  in 
the  study  of  the  Scriptures  ?  The  subject  meets  us  in 
many  relations,  which  demand  our  earnest  inquiry. 
It  forces  itself  on  the  friends  of  public  education,  who 
must  inquire  to-day  whether  the  Bible  shall  be  ex- 
cluded from  the  school.  It  meets  the  thoughtful  be- 
liever in  the  grave  riddles  opened  by  the  growth  of 
Biblical  criticism  and  the  fresh  researches  of  science. 
We  hear  on  one  side  the  denier  of  any  divine  revela- 
tion, who  claims  that  he  is  the  only  true  champion  of 
Protestant  principle.    Nor  can  we  doubt,  on  the  other, 

that  the  secret  of  most  of  the  perversions  to  the  Church 
274 


The  Study  of  the  Scriptures.  275 

of  Rome  lies,  as  one  of  its  best  apologists  holds,  in  the 
uneasy  fear  which  finds  its  refuge  in  the  name  of  in- 
fallibility. Where  do  we  stand  ?  Is  there  any  agree- 
ment between  Protestant  freedom  and  unity  in  Chris- 
tian truth?     What  is  the  Protestant  principle? 

I  wish  to  answer  this  question  with  an  honest  clear- 
ness. I  believe  with  the  fullest  conviction  that  the 
ground  of  the  Reformation  is  the  true  and  the  only 
true  one  on  which  we  can  rest.  Yet  it  is  not  so  easy 
as  some  think  to  be  stated ;  and  it  involves  some 
points  in  which  I  shall  doubtless  differ  from  the  popu- 
lar view.  But  if  I  can  so  meet  them  as  to  convince 
you  that  our  growth  in  Christian  knowledge  is  one 
with  an  unshaken  faith  I  shall  fulfil  my  purpose.  Nor 
do  I  speak  only  or  chiefly  to  scholars ;  for  although  I 
shall  touch  on  lines  of  thought  which  any  students  in 
theology  who  hear  me  may  follow  into  deep  waters, 
my  earnest  wish  is  to  meet  the  wants  of  all  thoughtful 
Christian  men,  to  give  them  in  a  day  of  chaotic  opin- 
ions that  abiding  truth  which  to  know  is  eternal  life. 

We  must  begin  our  inquiry  with  a  clear  statement 
of  our  Protestant  position,  and  the  argument  urged 
against  it  by  the  ablest  opponents.  The  doctrines  of 
a  justifying  faith  in  Christ,  and  of  the  supremacy  of 
Holy  Scripture  as  containing  all  necessary  truth,  are 
the  ground  of  the  Reformation.  Both  are  sides  of  one 
principle.  It  is  the  claim  of  the  Protestant  that  no 
traditions  of  men  and  no  outward  sacramental  systems 


2/6  Epochs  m  Church  History. 

can  come  between  the  personal  conscience  and  God ; 
and  therefore  the  word  of  God  alone  can  be  the  rule 
of  faith.  But  it  is  the  position  of  the  Roman  Church 
that  such  a  principle  is  the  claim  only  of  the  most  law- 
less freedom.  Although  all  may  profess  to  hold  one 
Bible,  yet  as  the  right  to  examine  and  settle  its  truth 
belongs  to  every  conscience ;  as  many  questions  of 
doctrine  as  well  as  order  are  involved  in  such  study 
which  need  Christian  learning,  and  as  few  have  either 
the  intellect  or  training  for  this,  the  Protestant  claim 
is  the  source  of  unbelief  or  fanaticism.  To  talk  of 
the  inspiration  of  such  a  Book  is  a  misnomer.  If  it 
can  be  interpreted  by  any  sect  or  any  man,  it  is  no 
longer  the  word  of  God.  None  can  state  the  reason- 
ing better  than  a  stern  Protestant  satirist  of  former 
days. 

*'  What  is  the  Bible  ?     The  book  where  each  man  seeks  his  own  dog- 
mas ; 
Yes,  and  the  book  where  each  man  certainly  finds  what  he  seeks." 

If  there  be  a  unity  of  faith,  then,  it  can  only  be  pos- 
sible when  we  admit  the  supreme  authority  of  the 
Church  as  the  interpreter ;  and  tradition,  so  far  from 
being  contrary  to  Scripture,  is  thus  necessary  to  it. 
Protestantism  has  been,  says  the  Romanist,  its  own 
fearful  commentary  on  this  fact ;  for  since  the  day  of 
Luther  it  has  overturned  not  merely  the  system  of  the 
Church,  but  the  Scriptures  whose  authority  it  boasts ; 
and  to-day  its  Bible  means  anything  from  Strauss  to 


The  Study  of  the  Scriptures.  277 

the  latest  unbelief.  Nor  is  it  only  or  chiefly  as  the 
destroyer  of  a  sound  learning  that  it  is  to  be  feared ; 
it  is  the  destroyer  of  the  simple  religion  of  the  peo- 
ple, the  parent  of  all  doubt  and  all  impiety.  Such 
has  been  the  argument,  from  the  Variations  of  Bos- 
suet  to  the  latest  of  these  divines.  I  cannot  give  it  in 
more  eloquent  strength  than  in  the  discourse  of  the 
greatest  of  modern  French  preachers,  Lacordaire,  and 
I  am  anxious  to  do  full  justice  to  his  reasoning : 
*'  Take  from  the  heavenly  order  the  force  Newton  has 
consecrated  under  the  name  of  attraction,  and  at  once 
the  globes  peopling  the  ether  would  fly  in  contrary 
paths,  precipitated  by  that  other  force  which  is  the 
schismatic  power  of  nature.  There  must  be  a  princi- 
ple of  unity  superior  to  the  elements  of  discord  which 
it  nurses  in  its  bosom,  and  this  principle,  it  has  a 
name :  it  is  sovereignty.  And  as  there  is  no  civil  so- 
ciety without  sovereignty,  there  is  no  society  of  minds 
without  an  intellectual  sovereignty.  Should  Protes- 
tants  carry  their  doctrine  over  the  world,  what  then  ? 
They  would  have  sown  the  Bible,  and  with  it  some 
ideas  it  contains  ;  but  they  would  not  have  established 
a  divine  order,  for  they  have  none."  This  is  the  logic 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  system  in  a  word.  Unity  of 
faith  is  impossible  with  Protestant  freedom  in  the 
study  of  the  Scriptures. 

We   are,  then,  fairly  to   test   this   question.     If  my 
purpose  were  merely  to  answer  the  Romish  doctrine,  it 


2/8  Epochs  in  CJmrcJi  History, 

would  be  enough  to  say  that  its  objection  comes  from 
an  utter  misstatement  of  the  Protestant  principle. 
The  aim  of  the  Reformers,  in  claiming  the  supremacy 
of  Scripture,  was  not  at  all  to  deny  a  due  authority 
in  the  Christian  Church  to  interpret  the  Scripture,  but 
to  deny  any  authority  to  impose  as  of  faith  any  dog- 
mas "  not  proven  by  warranty  of  Scripture."  Nor  is 
the  abuse  of  freedom  in  its  interpretation  any  argu- 
ment against  its  right  use.  We  hear  quoted,  often 
with  a  sneer,  the  old  watchword,  '' The  Bible  is  the 
religion  of  Protestants;"  but  the  sense  in  which  that 
phrase  was  first  uttered  by  Chillingworth,  the  most 
clear-headed  of  thinkers,  was  not  that  the  Protestant 
faith  meant  whatever  any  self-willed  theorist  or  igno- 
rant enthusiast  might  force  on  the  Bible,  but  simply 
that  it  contained  all  necessary  truth.  But  I  do  not 
wish  merely  to  answer  blow  by  blow.  I  wish  fairly  to 
meet  all  the  difficulties  of  the  case  as  they  are  felt  by 
every  thinking  mind  among  Protestants  themselves. 
Let  us  hear  them  honestly.  Are  there  not,  it  is  asked, 
many  questions  of  science  and  criticism  utterly  be- 
yond the  range  of  any  save  learned  men,  which  are 
yet  claimed  as  necessary  to  the  faith  in  revelation  ? 
Is  there  any  real  difference  between  a  Protestant  con- 
fession, v\^hich  demands  this,  and  a  Romish  infalli- 
bility ?  Is  not  the  notion  of  free  inquiry  in  such  a 
case  a  mockery  ?  I  cannot  doubt  that  such  questions 
are  hard  to  reconcile  with  some   of  our   prevailing 


The  Study  of  the  Scriptures.  279 

ideas  of  Scripture,  and  the  systems  of  doctrine  iden- 
tified with  it.  I  cannot  doubt  that  the  dilemma  has 
led  many  to  the  denial  of  all  positive  belief,  and 
driven  others  into  a  Church  v/hich  rids  them  of  a 
painful  responsibility.  And,  therefore,  I  wish  to  con- 
sider this  whole  subject  of  the  right  of  the  conscience 
and  the  true  authority  it  recognizes.  It  will  lead  us 
to  that  view  of  Scripture  which  makes  it  in  the  no- 
blest sense  a  sure  word  of  truth,  and  that  view  of  the 
Church  which  makes  it  a  living  fellowship. 

Let  us,  then,  study  the  principle  which  was  the 
starting  point  of  Protestant  thought.  I  have  said 
that  the  doctrines  of  a  justifying  faith  in  Christ  and 
the  supremacy  of  the  Holy  Scripture  are  parts  of  one 
truth.  What  was  this  idea  of  justifying  faith,  which 
created  a  new  life  not  only  in  theology,  but  in  all 
thinking  minds  from  a  Luther  to  the  plain  Christian 
man  ?  Was  it  another  scholastic  proposition  to  take 
the  place  of  the  reigning  system  ?  Surely  no.  It  was 
the  very  contrary.  It  was  the  good  tidings  that  Chris- 
tianity was  no  system  of  scholastic  notions  to  be  re- 
ceived by  a  blind  assent,  but  the  Gospel  which  could 
only  be  known  by  the  living  knowledge  of  Christ. 
Such  a  principle  uprooted  at  once  the  theory  on 
which  was  built  the  Sacramental  fabric  of  Rome.  It 
opened  that  ethical  and  spiritual  path  which  has  dis- 
tinguished Protestant  thought  ever  since  from  the 
traditionary  religion  of  the  past.     And  if  the  doctrine 


28o  EpocJis  in  Church  History, 

of  justification  has  sometimes  since  been  changed  into 
a  metaphysical  notion  as  hard  as  those  of  the  schools, 
it  was  in  its  original  idea  this  restoration  of  a  living, 
simple  Christianity.  The  Gospel  of  Christ  is  given 
for  one  only  purpose — to  reveal  redemption  from  sin, 
our  sonship  with  the  Father,  and  a  life  of  real  holi- 
ness, as  the  way  of  the  life  eternal.  This  is  its  sub- 
stance. It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  such  a  revelation 
must  come  to  every  man  as  a  personal  being  endowed 
with  thought  and  conscience,  and  must  demand  the 
personal  exercise  of  those  powers  to  receive  its  truth. 
Jesus  Christ,  the  giver  of  pardon,  grace,  life,  the  per- 
sonal revealer  of  the  Father,  is  the  object  of  knowl- 
edge. Such  a  knowledge,  then,  must  be  in  its  essen- 
tial character  different  to  any  such  assent  as  we  give 
to  mere  authority  in  questions  of  science  or  history. 
It  begins  with  the  recognition  of  our  moral  relation 
to  God  as  His  children,  of  His  law  of  holiness  and 
our  sin,  of  the  love  of  God  as  it  meets  this  want  in 
the  incarnate  grace  of  His  Son.  It  is  a  knowledge, 
therefore,  not  only  intellectual,  but  knit  with  the  re- 
newed affections,  and  through  it  we  receive  the  truth 
of  Christ  as  we  are  made  one  with  His  own  spirit  of 
holiness.  His  revelation  becomes  to  us  not  only  a 
doctrine,  but  a  life  of  real  growth  in  His  fellowship, 
of  daily  duty  to  God  and  men.  But  if  this  be  indeed 
our  conception  of  Christianity  as  a  personal  faith,  it 
is   clear,  again,  that   it  is  no    individual  opinion,  no 


The  Study  of  the  Scriptures.  281 

subjective  religion.  It  rests  on  the  one  common 
truth  of  the  incarnate  Son  of  God,  whose  revelation 
is  the  same  for  all  men,  because  all  have  in  their  con- 
sciences the  same  fact  of  their  relation  to  God,  the 
same  sense  of  sin,  the  same  need  of  redemption.  This 
was  the  Protestant  principle  ;  and  it  is  plain  in  this 
view  that  it  was  and  was  meant  to  be,  not  a  new 
Christianity,  but  the  old,  positive,  historic  faith,  as  it 
was  embodied  in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  which  Luther 
arid  all  the  Reformers  held  ;  that  faith,  not  in  later 
dogmatic  systems,  but  in  the  Gospel  of  the  New  Tes- 
tam'ent,  which  spoke  at  once  to  the  mind  of  each  per- 
sonal believer,  yet  is  the  ground  of  fellowship  for  all 
who  are  members  of  the  great  household  of  God. 

We  have  here,  then,  the  just  and  the  only  just  view 
of  this  principle,  as  it  bears  on  the  doctrine  of  the  su- 
premacy and  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures.  The  in- 
carnate Christ  is  the  object  of  our  faith.  It  is  in  this 
volume  alone  we  have  the  original,  pure  record  of  the 
truth  and  grace  He  has  bestowed  ;  and  all  the  systems 
of  men  can  add  nothing  to  it.  We  are,  then,  to  inter- 
pret it  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  its  divine  unity. 
It  is  given  in  the  form  of  history ;  a  history  which 
teaches  us  the  education  of  the  world  through  its 
growing  childhood  to  the  birth  of  Him  who  was  the 
fulness  of  times.  That  history,  in  its  very  structure, 
is  mingled  with  many  critical  questions  as  to  the  cre- 
ation, the  annals  of  the  early  race,  the  development 


282  Epochs  in  CJmrch  History. 

of  Hebrew  life,  and  the  formation  of  the  new  Chris- 
tian society.  But  its  one  essential  purpose,  so  far  as 
it  concerns  our  belief  as  followers  of  Christ,  is  the 
knowledge  of  our  redemption.  Christ  is  the  key  of 
the  Scriptures.  It  is  "through  the  faith  that  is  in 
Christ  Jesus,"  the  Apostle  says,  in  that  much-miscon- 
ceived verse  of  his  Epistle,  we  learn  that  "  all  Scriptures 
are  given  by  divine  inspiration."  The  spirit  of  His 
Gospel  alone  opens  them.  It  gives  us  the  knowledge 
that  is  not  a  scientific  guess-work,  *'  but  both  profitable 
for  teaching,  for  instruction  in  righteousness."  If  we 
have  learned  His  truth,  these  pages  from  beginning  to 
end  have  a  living  unity.  The  Old  Testament  reveals  the 
one  personal  God,  the  creator  of  the  world  ;  the  origin 
of  man  as  a  son  in  His  moral  likeness  ;  the  entrance 
of  sin  by  the  free  act  of  transgression  ;  the  contin- 
uance of  a  divine  grace  in  the  long  preparatory  train- 
ing of  the  Hebrew  past  ;  the  holy  law,  which  stands 
alone,  like  Sinai,  in  the  moral  desert  of  history.  The 
New  Testament  reveals  the  perfect  truth  and  grace 
of  God  in  the  person,  the  life,  the  sacrifice  of  Jesus 
Christ.  All  these  parts  of  the  sacred  volume  have 
thus  their  mutual  connections,  and  all  must  be  inter- 
preted by  their  one  divine  purpose. 
•  Such,  then,  must  be  the  clear  principle  which  guides 
us  in  our  study.  Whatever  belongs  to  these  founda- 
tion truths  is  the  divine,  infallible  faith  of  Christian 
men.     Whatever  does  not  touch  these  lies  within  the 


The  Shidy  of  the  Scriptures.  283 

outer  circle  of  scientific  inquiry.  I  do  not  here  dwell 
on  the  theory  of  verbal  or  plenary  inspiration.  If  the 
view  I  have  given  you  be  clear,  it  will  be  seen  that 
such  a  theory,  whatever  the  reverence  of  Scripture 
that  prompts  it,  leaves  the  deepest  difficulties  of  the 
subject  unanswered.  For  if  the  Bible  be  indeed  a 
book  which  only  presents  to  us  a  vast  number  of  crit- 
ical riddles,  to  be  received  as  part  of  essential  revela- 
tion, yet  in  their  very  nature  beyond  the  decision  of 
any  save  the  most  critical  scholar,  and  always  open  to 
fresh  controversy,  then  it  must  demand,  as  the  Ro- 
manist asks,  an  infallible  interpreter.  Our  faith,  then, 
needs  a  surer  ground.  It  rests  on  the  knowledge  of 
Him  who  is  the  life  of  the  written  Word.  It  is  our 
deeper  reverence  for  its  inspired  truth,  our  faith  in  its 
real  unity,  which  point  us  to  the  principle  I  have  laid 
down.  Such  a  knowledge  will  teach  us  the  right 
point  of  view,  from  which  we  shall  learn  the  worth  of 
the  Hebrew  history,  its  worship,  its  social  polity,  its 
heroes  and  its  saints,  yet  understand  the  far  higher 
character  of  the  Christian  Gospel  and  the  Christian 
holiness.  It  v/ill  show  us  the  due  relation  of  all  its 
parts,  chronicle  or  psalm  or  prophecy,  to  the  central 
design.  It  will  show  us  the  natural  variety  in  the 
style  of  the  Vv-riters,  the  tone  of  their  thought,  yet 
their  true  harmony.  There  will  be  no  self-willed  rea- 
son in  this  study,  for  it  is  to  follow  the  reason  of  the 
Word  itself     There  will  be  no  vague  opinion,  for  we 


284  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

'*  hold  the  head,  even  Christ."  We  shall  not  fear  the 
assaults  of  a  false  neology,  because  we  shall  be  assured 
that  all  the  results  of  earlier  or  later  criticisms  can  no 
more  shake  the  foundations  than  the  removing  of  a 
few  loose  stones  can  shake  the  walls  of  the  cathedral. 
Much  will  interest  us  as  Christian  scholars  which  will 
not  touch  our  Christian  faith.  Science  will  decide  at 
last,  as  it  did  with  the  heresy  of  Copernicus,  the  ques- 
tions of  our  time  as  to  the  Mosaic  cosmogony,  or  the  age 
of  the  world ;  yet  its  verdict  will  not  disturb  us,  if  the 
design  of  revelation  be,  not  to  teach  geology  or  astron- 
omy, or  the  details  of  secular  history,  but  to  give  us 
the  knowledge  of  redemption.  And  as  this  is  the  plain 
rule  for  the  scholar,  so  the  simple  believer  will  read 
this  word  without  needless  'questions  concerning  that 
which  has  no  bearing  whatever  on  his  faith  or  holiness. 
If  we  have  not  this  knowledge  of  Christ's  Gospel,  al- 
though we  have  sounded  all  the  depths  and  shoals  of 
criticism,  we  have  not  the  alphabet  of  the  truth ;  if  we 
have  this,  the  sacred  volume  is  one — one  in  its  historic 
and  its  spiritual  meaning,  one  for  the  wise  and  the 
unlettered,  one  for  the  intellect,  the  heart,  and  the 
life. 

In  such  a  light  we  pass  clearly  to  the  next  weighty 
side  of  our  subject,  the  authority  of  the  Church  as  the 
interpreter  of  the  Scriptures.  It  is  the  claim  of  the 
Romanist,  and  of  others  who  deny  the  Protestant  prin- 
ciple, that  there  must  be  unity  of  faith  in  regard  to 


The  Study  of  the  Scriptures.  285 

the  truths  of  revelation.  We  grant  this,  nay,  we  affirm 
this  unity  as  the  very  bond  of  fellowship.  To  deny  it 
would  be  to  make  revelation  a  mockery.  A  religion 
or  a  Church  which  came  out  of  no  positive  truth 
whatever,  would  be  as  like  that  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment as  the  universe  of  Prof.  Haeckel  out  of  a  lifeless 
cell  is  like  that  of  the  Divine  Maker.  But  the  ques- 
tion on  which  hinges  the  real  difference  is  as  to  the* 
nature  of  this  unity.  What  is  it?  We  may  have 
already  given  the  answer  in  the  conclusion  we  reached 
as  to  the  character  of  the  Scripture  itself.  The  truth 
of  the  Word  of  God  has  in  itself,  as  we  sought  to 
show,  an  intrinsic  unity ;  it  is  the  one  revelation  of 
Jesus  Christ,  of  the  sonship  and  fellowship  of  be- 
lievers in  him.  There  need  be,  then,  no  contradiction 
whatever,  and  no  perplexity  as  to  the  superior  claim 
of  Bible  or  of  Church.  It  is  said  that  the  Church  ex- 
isted before  the  Scripture,  and  that  the  canon  itself 
rests  on  its  authority.  Undoubtedly.  It  is  said  that 
the  Scripture  is  above  the  Church.  Undoubtedly.  But 
the  view  which  we  have  given  reconciles  them.  Jesus 
Christ,  the  living  Word,  is  before  and  above  both. 
The  Incarnation  is  the  key  of  the  Bible  ;  without  it, 
there  remains  a  dead  letter.  The  Incarnation  is  the 
basis  of  our  organic  fellowship ;  without  it,  creed  and 
sacrament  are  dead.  Scripture  and  the  Church,  then, 
bear  witness  to  one  and  the  selfsame  essential  truth. 
The  written  word  remains  always  the  original,  supreme 


286  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

and  sufficing  record  of  Him,  nor  can  any  authority  of 
human  councils  add  anything  as  of  necessary  beh'ef  to 
what  He  has  given.  It  is  the  function  of  the  Church 
to  keep  this  truth  in  its  simpHcity,  to  embody  in  its 
creed  the  clear  meaning  of  revelation,  to  expound  it 
through  its  authorized  teachers,  its  devout  worship, 
and  its  methods  of  practical  education. 
•  A  Christian  creed  is  thus  the  growth  of  Christian 
thought.  It  was  necessary  that  the  truth  of  the  Incar- 
nate Christ  should  be  defined  in  its  more  doctrinal 
form  when  our  religion  had  passed  beyond  the  plain 
belief  of  Apostolic  days,  and  many  speculative  theories 
had  beclouded  its  simplicity.  The  great  doctrines  of 
sin,  atonement,  grace,  have  been  the  successive  ex- 
positions of  the  one  revealed  fact  of  God  in  Christ,  as 
age  after  age  they  have  employed  the  mind  of  the 
Church.  But  while  this  is  true,  the  unity  of  the  faith 
is  not  the  unity  of  a  theological  system.  Creeds  and 
confessions  have  their  needful  use  as  a  bulwark 
against  speculative  errors,  but  they  are  not  the  living 
truth  itself.  We  have  in  the  science  of  astronomy  the 
noblest  work  of  the  human  mind  in  reckoning  the 
orbit  of  the  sun  and  the  varied  motion  of  the  planets  ; 
yet  the  sun,  not  the  treatise  of  astronomy,  gives  light 
and  heat.  And  even  so  it  is  the  personal  power  of 
Christ's  truth  which  gives  life.  The  belief  in  His  Incar- 
nation did  not  rest  on  the  vote  of  an  assembly  of 
bishops   in    the    Nicene   age ;    the    common    faith   of 


The  Study  of  the  Scriptures.  287 

believers  uttered  itself  in  the  creed,  and  this  is  the 
truth  speaking  in  the  New  Testament  now  and  always 
in  the  divine  sinless  grace  of  His  person,  of  which  the 
symbol  is  only  the  scientific  expression.  Thus  it  is 
with  each  doctrine.  Augustin  may  expound  the 
meaning  of  sin,  Anselm  may  give  us  a  theory  of  the 
atonement,  Calvin  may  reason  of  the  riddle  of  grace 
and  will ;  but  It  is  the  fact  of  sin  In  the  conscience  of 
each,  the  truth  of  redemption  as  It  speaks  in  the 
heartfelt  revelation  of  the  Saviour,  which  makes  be- 
lievers one.  And  hence  the  chief  duty  of  the  Church  is, 
while  it  guards  against  Ignorant  Interpretation,  to  keep 
"the  healthy  teaching"  which  St.  Paul  so  often  urges, 
by  an  appeal  to  the  open  word  of  Scripture.  Here  alone 
in  the  primitive,  fresh  Gospel  we  have  the  touchstone 
by  which  to  try  the  dross  of  all  traditions ;  here  we  all, 
scholars  or  simple,  have  one  common  birthright. 

Now  this  clear  principle  we  are  to  distinguish  from 
the  false  view  of  the  Church  as  the  interpreter  of  the 
word.  It  is  the  claim  of  the  Romanist  that  Scripture 
is  the  record  of  divine  truth  ;  but  its  interpretation  is 
given  to  one  class  of  teachers  alone,  and  a  Christian 
faith  is  an  unquestioning  assent  to  its  decrees.  Let 
us  not  mistake  the  difference.  This  claim  Is  not  only 
to  the  authority  of  a  wise  teaching,  consistent  with 
the  open  knowledge  of  the  word  of  God,  but  to  infal- 
libility. And  I  beg  you  again  to  observe  the  ground 
of  the  claim.    It  Is  that  false  conception  of  the  Script- 


288  Epochs  in  Church  History, 

ures  which  I  have  endeavored  to  expose.  It  is  the 
assumption  of  the  Romanist  that  the  Christian  reve- 
lation is  a  system  of  abstract  dogmas,  of  scientific 
riddles,  which  must  therefore  be  a  sealed  book  to  all 
save  a  few  authorized  expounders.  I  turn  to  one  of 
the  most  subtle  of  modern  defences,  the  Grammar  of 
Assent,  by  Mr.  Newman,  for  the  clear  statement  of 
the  doctrine.  "  It  stands  to  reason  that  all,  learned 
and  unlearned,  are  bound  to  believe  the  whole  re- 
vealed doctrine  in  all  its  parts  and  all  it  implies  ;  it 
stands  also  to  reason  that  a  doctrine  so  deep  and 
various  as  the  revealed  deposituin  of  faith  cannot  be 
brought  home  to  us  and  made  our  own  all  at  once." 
'■'■  The  difficulty  is  removed  by  the  dogma  of  the 
Church's  infallibility  and  of  the  consequent  duty  of 
implicit  faith  in  her  word.  It  stands  in  the  place  of 
all  abstruse  propositions  in  a  Catholic  mind,  for  to 
believe  in  her  word  is  to  virtually  believe  in  them  all. 
Even  what  he  cannot  understand  he  can  believe  to 
be  true,  and  he  believes  it  to  be  true  because  he  be- 
lieves in  the  Church."  Examine  now  the  logic.  If 
the  word  of  God  be  such  a  riddle,  '*  deep  and  various," 
and  if  essential  faith  be  in  this  riddle,  then  in  very 
deed  many  Protestant  minds  would  cry,  "  Let  us  give 
up  our  torturing  responsibility,  and  rest  in  the  Nir- 
vana of  the  infallible  Church.  But  if  it  be  not  this — if 
it  be  a  revelation  indeed  for  the  mind  and  heart — such 
a  claim  is  the  most  astounding  of  absurdities.     We 


The  Study  of  the  Scriptures.  289 

lay  bare  here  the  root  of  this  sophistry.  Such  a  faith 
is  not  the  acceptance  of  the  truth  of  Christ,  as  it  meets 
our  personal  thought  or  affection  ;  it  is  the  assent  of 
the  blind  mind  to  a  sum  of  abstruse  propositions  ^ 
which  we  cannot  know  at  all,  but  believe  because  we 
are  told  to  believe  them.  If  this  be  Christianity,  then 
it  is  no  revelation.  The  word  of  God  is  a  mockery, 
for  it  can  convey  no  light,  even  through  the  glasses  of 
its  pretended  interpreters.  This  mental  assent  is  such 
as  the  man  of  science  would  demand  should  he  say, 
''You  cannot  see  the  stars  with  the  naked  eye;  put 
out  your  eyes  and  then  look  through  my  telescope." 
If  this  again  be  Catholic  unity,  then  the  truths  of  our 
salvation  are  a  deposit  of  esoteric  dogma  in  the  hands 
of  an  irresponsible  priesthood.  If  this  be  Catholic 
certainty,  then  the  meaning  of  the  Scripture  is  not 
surer  than  when  left  at  the  mercy  of  a  hundred  sects, 
for  we  have  absolutely  no  test  left  to  judge  between  its 
truth  and  every  tradition.  Who  does  not  see  that  out 
of  this  root  has  sprung  the  harvest  of  falsehoods  ?  The 
Church  declares  as  Christ's  word, ''  This  is  my  body  ;  " 
and,  therefore,  a  bit  of  bread  is  Christ,  although  sense, 
reason,  and  Scripture,  deny  it ;  and  for  the  commun- 
ion that  asks  your  intelligent  faith,  you  must  hold  a 
senseless  and  soulless  marvel  on  peril  of  salvation. 
Yet  we  have  devout  men  to-day  who,  for  fear  of  un- 
belief, will  choose  this  theory  and  call  it  the  unity  of 
faith.  Strange  insanity  !  It  will  make  a  hundred- 
13 


290  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

fold  more  unbelievers  than  the  most  destructive  criti- 
cism. But  let  us  not  merely  recognize  here  the  error 
of  a  Roman  Catholic  system.  It  may  lurk  and  does 
too  often  lurk  in  Protestant  disguise.  If,  instead  of 
the  simple  truth  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  we  make  it 
an  abstruse  theology  or  a  volume  of  scientific  riddles, 
we  shall  reach  a  like  conclusion.  Whether  it  be 
Trent,  or  Dort,  or  Westminster,  whether  Anglo-Cath- 
olic  or  any  other,  to  mistake  the  authority  of  theolog- 
ical confessions  for  the  unity  of  the  faith  is  the  prin- 
ciple of  infallibility.  Our  Christianity  becomes  a  gos- 
pel of  notions,  not  a  living  word. 

And  if,  then,  we  so  understand  the  rightful  relation 
of  Scripture  to  the  Church,  we  can  at  once  apply  our 
reasoning  to  the  conclusion  before  us — our  right  and 
our  responsibility  in  this  study.  The  law  which  binds 
our  conscience,  and  the  freedom  we  must  maintain  in 
the  pursuit  of  the  truth,  are  not  contrary  to  each  other, 
but  one.  I  shall  take  up  each  of  these  points  in  its 
order.  We  have  the  true  idea  of  law  :  not  the  sur- 
render of  our  Christian  right  to  any  arbitrary  power, 
but  our  intelligent,  willing  unity  in  the  body  of  Christ. 
We  recognize  in  our  relation  to  the  Church  the  same 
organic  fact  we  accept  in  all  our  growth.  Each  of  us 
has  his  education  from  youth  to  manhood  in  this  social 
atmosphere  ;  and  each  must  find  this  training  in  science 
or  letters,  under  the  care  of  the  best  teachers,  in  the 
studies  suited  to  his  powers,  that  he  may  gain  the  self- 


TJie  Study  of  the  Scriptures.  291 

discipline  for  his  calling.  Nor  is  it  less  so  with  our 
Christian  nurture.  There  are  few,  unless  they  have 
been  bred  in  the  thin  air  of  free  religion,  who  sit  down 
in  youth  to  construct  a  belief;  and  if,  like  Mr.  Mill, 
any  has  been  guarded  from  all  religious  bias,  he  will 
only  accept  Atheism  by  faith  in  his  father's  infallibil- 
ity. None  ever  reads  the  Bible  **  without  note  or 
comment."  We  receive  the  current  ideas  of  doctrine 
from  home-teaching,  book,  Sunday-school,  pulpit  ;  we 
catch  many  opinions,  to  be  corrected  by  riper  thought. 
But  such  authority  is  not  arbitrary  ;  it  is  the  same 
deference  to  superior  learning  we  pay  in  questions  of 
law  or  natural  science.  I  have  indeed  no  faith  in  the 
cloistered  training  which  keeps  the  young  mind  in 
ignorance  of  all  criticism,  or  in  the  mechanical  study 
of  the  Bible,  for  such  a  mistake  too  often  whets  a 
doubt  ;  but  I  have  as  little  in  the  slipshod  religion 
that  forgets  the  need  of  mental  and  moral  discipline. 
We  can  only  gain  in  the  instruction  of  the  Christian 
household  the  reverent  reason  which  can  enable  us  to 
pass  beyond  the  school.  If  we  have  learned  the  sim- 
ple truths  of  a  Father,  a  Redeemer,  a  Sanctifier,  the 
law  of  a  pure  conscience,  the  affections  that  bind  us 
with  Christ  and  men,  the  habits  of  a  growing  holiness, 
the  modesty  of  true  knowledge,  we  have  the  heart  of 
wisdom  ;  and  whatever  the  mental  struggles  or  even 
the  doubt  of  after  years,  we  shall  seldom  fall  into  a 
shallow  or  mocking  unbelief. 


292  Epochs  in  Church  History, 

Such  is  the  authority  we  recognize  as  that  which 
binds  us  in  the  communion  of  Christ.  It  is  the  au- 
thority of  learning.  It  is  the  authority  of  holiness. 
It  is  the  authority  of  a  common  faith.  We  do  not, 
because  we  hold  the  Protestant  faith  and  accept  the 
Bible  as  the  oracle  of  truth,  therefore  make  a  new 
Christianity ;  but  rather,  we  claim  our  share  in  all  the 
wisdom  that  has  studied  its  divine  pages.  The  his- 
tory of  the  Church  is  not  a  mere  wrangle  of  theological 
opinions.  The  essential  truths  of  Christ,  his  doctrine 
and  sacraments,  are  unchanged  in  their  real  influence ; 
nor  do  we  confound  with  any  systems  of  any  teachers 
the  faith  that  abides  always,  everywhere,  and  for  all. 
It  is  a  far  truer  view  of  Catholicity  which  our  Protestant 
belief  gives  us  than  that  which  I  have  cited  from  La- 
cordaire.  The  unity  of  the  Church,  in  his  idea,  is  like 
the  power  of  the  sun,  which  masters  the  "  schismatic 
force  "  that  tends  to  draw  the  planets  from  the  centre. 
But  let  us  study  this  magnificent  figure.  If  there  were 
no  centrifugal  power  to  balance  the  attraction,  the 
planets  would  be  drawn  into  the  scorching  bosom  of 
the  sun.  That  is  the  unity  of  Rome.  It  is  not  there 
we  find  the  attractive  power  that  keeps  the  life  of 
Christianity.  Unity  in  the  Church,  as  in  nature,  com- 
bines authority  and  moral  freedom.  Where  is  this 
abiding  religion?  It  is  just  where  it  was  in  the  Apos- 
tolic or  Nicene  age.  It  lives  in  the  Word  of  God  and 
in  the  fellowship  of  Christian  men.     All  the  controver- 


The  Study  of  the  ScripUtres.  293 

sies  of  the  schools,  all  the  questions  that  concern  the 
critic,,  do  not  materially  affect  it.  It  is  not  probable 
that  the  habit  of  Christian  prayer  will  die  out  because 
Mr.  Tyndall  has  proposed  his  prayer  gauge,  or  that  a 
thousand  theories  will  disturb  the  life  of  religion.  The 
purpose  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ  is  for  guidance  in  the 
way  of  daily  duty,  and  therefore  it  can  never  lose  its 
power.  It  teaches  the  same  Father,  Redeemer,  and 
Sanctifier ;  it  heals  the  conscience  in  its  struggles 
with  sin,  ministers  to  rich  or  poor,  lettered  or  simple, 
one  law  of  social  duty,  one  comfort  in  trial,  holds  up 
the  cross  of  Christ,  and  opens  the  gates  of  life  eternal. 
And  it  is  the  truest  mark  of  the  divinity  of  our  relig- 
ion, that  it  has  this  adaptation  to  the  mind  and  heart 
of  all  men.  There  is  a  science  for  the  scholar,  and  a 
sufficing  wisdom  for  the  less  gifted  believer.  Few  can 
master  the  Hebrew  or  Greek  Scriptures  ;  few  can  de- 
cide the  nice  questions  of  Christian  evidence;  but  he 
that  hath  the  Son  of  God  hath  the  witness  in  himself. 
A  Laplace  can  map  the  heavens  by  his  M^canique 
Cdeste ;  but  the  seaman,  with  a  simpler  knowledge, 
shall  guide  his  vessel  by  the  same  stars  through  the 
dangers  of  the  ocean ;  and  even  so  a  Christian  man, 
if  he  be  not  able  to  meet  all  the  speculative  riddles  of 
the  time,  to  settle  the  facts  of  geology  or  the  law  of 
evolution,  may  walk  in  the  light  of  a  positive  truth 
with  a  faith  as  reasonable  as  it  is  heartfelt.  Is  it  a 
blind  assent  to  the  voice  of  an  infallible  Church  which 


294  EpocJis  in  Church  History. 

gives  this  unity?  No.  It  is  that  the  foundation 
truths  of  the  Christian  revelation  are  one  for  the  con- 
science and  the  Hfe.  When  I  turn  to  Augustine,  as  he 
reasons  of  the  loftiest  problems  of  the  providence  of 
God  and  the  nature  of  the  soul,  I  hear  him  say  at  last, 
''  In  Cicero  and  Plato  I  meet  with  many  things  acutely 
spoken,  but  in  them  all  I  find  not  this ;  '  Come  unto 
me,  ye  weary  and  heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you 
rest';''  and  if  I  go  to  the  humblest  disciple,  who  has 
learned  this  faith  in  the  Son  of  God  amid  the  trials  of 
daily  life,  I  have  the  centre  and  sum  of  a  Christian 
theology. 

We  may  thus  pass  to  the  point  which  completes 
our  view — the  freedom  of  inquiry  in  the  study  of  the 
Scriptures.  If  the  truth  of  revelation,  as  I  have 
shown,  is  one  and  unchanging,  because  it  lives  in  its 
original  record  and  in  the  fellowship  of  all  believers, 
yet  the  exposition  of  the  book  is  human,  and  there- 
fore capable  of  clearer  and  clearer  knowledge.  There 
must  be  always  in  the  Church  of  Christ  a  spirit  of 
healthful  growth.  We  are  never  to  confound  with  the 
abiding  faith  the  methods  of  Biblical  intepretation. 
The  criticism  of  the  Word  of  God  must,  in  its  very 
nature,  change  with  our  closer  study  of  language,  the 
light  thrown  on  Hebrew  or  Christian  history  from  all 
sources  of  later  learning,  and  the  correction  of  past 
errors.  It  is  impossible  to  find  in  any  science,  in  the 
advance   of  astronomy  from    the   rude    chart   of  the 


The  Study  of  the  Scriptures.  295 

heavens  to  the  laws  of  Newton,  or  of  anatomy  from 
Galen  to  our  times,  a  riper  growth  than  from  the  alle- 
gorical methods  of  the  early  fathers  to  the  historic 
criticism  of  our  day.  We  love  the  spiritual  insight  of 
Augustin,  but  his  fanciful  intepretation  of  the  days  of 
creation  would  be  thought  to-day  strange  absurdity. 
This  mystical  exposition  has  -been  consecrated  in  the 
Latin  Church.  But  Protestantism,  while  it  has  from 
the  first  been  truer  to  the  Scripture,  has  only  by  de- 
grees freed  itself  from  the  same  methods.  It  has  too^ 
often  interpreted  the  Scripture  by  its  theological  sys- 
tems, instead  of  its  systems  by  Scripture.  The  Old 
Testament  has  been  turned  into  a  riddle,  and  the 
epistles  of  St.  Paul  read  through  our  controversial 
glasses.  We  have  too  many  to-day  who  follow  the 
canon  of  Cocceius,  that  the  Bible  should  have  all  the 
occult  meanings  they  find  in  it.  Yet  each  step  has 
brousfht  us  nearer  and  nearer  to  the  true  method.  And 
it  is  the  glory  of  our  Protestant  faith  that,  as  it  claims 
above  all  to  find  truth  in  the  Word  of  God,  it  has,  in 
spite  of  its  partial  systems,  encouraged  that  free,  yet 
reverent  study  which  is  sure  at  last  to  correct  its  own 
errors,  and  lead  to  a  living  knowledge.  The  only  con- 
dition of  a  healthy  life,  intellectual  or  spiritual,  is  in 
this  ceaseless  growth.  Let  there  be  an  authority  that 
frowns  on  all  culture,  stereotypes  all  belief  by  its 
theological  confessions,  and  calls  all  reasonable  thought 
rationalism,  and  it  will  end  in  stagnation;  nay,  it  will 


296  EpocJis  ill  ChurcJi  History. 

always  create  rationalism  in  its  own  bosom.  It  is 
passing  strange  that  readers  of  history,  Protestant  as 
well  as  Romish,  so  often  mistake  this  principle.  The 
dogmatism  of  one  generation  reacts  in  the  heresy  of 
the  next.  The  pent-up  reason  finds  its  only  freedom 
in  a  wild  explosion.  What  can  give  us  so  sure  a 
lesson  as  the  Church  w-hich  boasts  infallibility !  No 
communion  has  held  within  its  bosom  more  warring 
elements :  Jansenist  and  Jesuit ;  rationalists,  like  Abe- 
lard,  v/ho  tore  up  school  theology  by  the  roots  ;  Pan- 
theists, who  grafted  Averroes  on  the  stock  of  Catholic 
faith  ;  materialists,  in  the  age  before  the  Reformation, 
who  denied  soul  and  immortality — ^yet  all  its  efforts  to 
burn  out  thought  by  the  fagot,  or  its  modern  anathe- 
mas against  science,  have  ended  in  an  unbelief  among 
educated  minds  far  deadlier  than  any  of  Protestant 
growth.  Yet  we  have  too  often  forgotten  the  lesson. 
It  cannot  be  doubted,  as  Dorner  has  clearly  shown  in 
his  history  of  the  reformed  doctrine,  that  the  earlier 
neology  of  Germany  was  the  natural  child  of  the 
formal  theology.  Where,  then,  is  the  security  of  the 
faith  against  false  science?  It  lies  in  the  growth  of 
true  science.  The  Church  must  keep  its  simple  creed, 
its  reverent  training;  but  it  must  have  such  trust  in 
the  divine  power  of  truth  that  it  can  encourage  a  wise 
freedom.  When  I  hear  some  of  our  modern  dog- 
matists say  that  the  Protestant  principle  leads  to 
rationalism,  I   smile  as  I  should   at  one  who  forbade 


The  Study  of  ike   Scriptures.  297 

pure  water  because  it  holds  an  inflammable  gas.  That 
spirit  is  at  bottom  indifference  to  truth.  The  real 
secret  of  the  power  which  an  infallible  Church  has 
over  many  minds,  is  that  it  satisfies  their  sloth  and 
rids  them  of  the  responsibility  of  thought.  It  was 
well  said  by  John  Locke,  that  if  infallibility  had  been 
best,  it  had  been  better  that  God  should  make  each 
man  infallible,  since  mistake  would  then  be  impossi- 
ble ;  yet  he  has  not  done  so.  Christian  truth  is  given 
to  the  Church  for  its  growth.  It  must  keep  the  open 
Word  of  God  ;  it  must  win  its  victories  over  error  by  a 
sounder  learning. 

But  perhaps  I  cannot  better  close  this  argument 
than  by  taking,  as  my  example,  the  lesson  which  the 
history  of  Biblical  criticism  furnishes  at  this  day.  I 
have  no  space  for  more  than  a  sketch ;  but  enough,  if 
it  teach  us  what  I  have  striven  to  enforce,  that  our 
best  Christian  learning  is  the  fruit  of  our  struggles. 
We  look  with  natural  alarm  at  the  unbelief  which 
seeks  to  undermine  the  very  ground  of  a  divine  revela- 
tion ;  yet  if  we  will  study  its  steps,  we  shall  have  no 
unwise  fears  of  the  result.  I  have  said  already  that 
the  neology  which  had  its  birth  in  the  Church  of 
Luther,  came  from  the  decay  of  theology  itself,  which 
had  hid  the  living  truth  of  Scripture  under  its  formal 
system.  There  was  no  true  study  of  its  historic 
structure  or  its  unity  of  design.     It  was  an  easy  work 

for  the  critic  to  sweep  away  the  rubbish  of  former 
13* 


298  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

interpreters,  to  explain  the  miracles  by  ingenious 
natural  theory  ;  and  for  a  time  it  seemed  that  every 
part  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  would  be 
destroyed  by  this  piecemeal  process.  But  it  was 
another  task  when  the  old  earthworks  were  de- 
molished, and  the  rationalist  came  face  to  face  with 
the  central  truths  of  revelation.  A  new  generation  of 
thinkers  like  Strauss  followed  the  negative  critics. 
This  was  the  positive  question  they  had  to  meet, 
what  should  explain  that  greatest  of  all  miracles,  the 
person  of  Christ,  the  central  fact  of  both  revelation 
and  human  history?  And  here,  then,  the  Word 
of  God  called  out  the  new  learning  of  its  defenders. 
It  awoke  a  deeper  study  of  the  Scriptures.  It  has 
ended  to-day  in  the  noblest  results.  Undoubtedly  our 
older  methods  of  interpretation  have  been  changed  in 
many  points  ;  but  we  have  gained  a  larger  and  surer 
ground.  The  Old  Testament  has  been  studied  in  the 
light  of  history ;  and  the  divine  features,  in  which  it 
stands  above  all  records,  its  truths  of  one  God,  its 
stately  law,  its  unity  of  design,  its  work  in  the  educa- 
tion of  the  race,  remain  its  unshaken  evidence.  But 
the  result  of  this  study  is  nobler  yet  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. Neology  has  centred  its  strength  in  the 
effort  to  explain  away  the  historic  miracle  of  Christ, 
It  has  sought  to  make  Him  a  myth  ;  it  has  sought 
again  to  give  a  later  origin  to  the  Gospels;  but  each 
attempt  has  ended  in  clearer  evidence  of  fact.     The 


The  Stttdy  of  the  Scriptures.  299 

contest  is  not  over.  It  may  even  seem  to  many  in 
this  day  of  a  gross  atheism  to  be  fiercer  than  be- 
fore. But  it  is  precisely  here  we  find  the  best  promise 
of  the  end.  For  it  is  no  longer  a  pretended  Chris- 
tianity with  which  we  have  to  strive  ;  it  is  an  unbelief 
which  confesses  that  there  is  no  standing  ground 
between  an  unknowable  God  and  the  revelation  of 
Jesus  Christ.  And  more  than  this,  it  is  clear  that  the 
long  struggle  has  ended  in  the  sounder  learning,  the 
more  living  faith,  of  the  Christian  Church.  We  have 
gained  not  only  a  truer  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures, 
but  through  this  of  the  character  of  revelation  itself. 
It  is  the  aim  of  our  best  thought  to  turn  away  from 
the  unreal  strifes  of  our  theological  schools,  and  to 
come  back  to  the  sources ;  to  measure  systems  of 
doctrine  and  Church  parties  by  the  one  simple  truth 
of  Christ,  not  Christ  by  them ;  and  this  will  bring  at 
last  the  only  unity.  A  theology  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, a  Church  of  the  New  Testament,  is  what  we  need. 
This  is  the  result,  this  is  the  noble  witness  of  a  Chris- 
tian learning.  We  may  mourn  over  the  strifes  of  error, 
but  we  are  false  to  the  cause  of  Christ,  false  to  the 
whole  history  of  the  past,  false  to  all  the  labors  of  the 
wise,  false  to  the  best  hopes  of  the  future,  if  we  have 
not  this  unshaken  faith  in  the  victory  of  truth. 

And  thus,  my  friends,  I  may  gather  these  thoughts 
into  their  plain  conclusion.  I  have  shown  you  the  re- 
lation  of  the  Christian  conscience  to  the  Gospel  of 


300  Epochs  m   Church  History. 

Christ.  I  have  shown  you  the  unity  of  the  truth  given 
in  the  written  word,  and  the  method  of  its  study  ;  its 
right  harmony  with  the  doctrinal  authority  of  the 
Church,  the  abiding  character  of  Christian  belief,  yet 
its  growth  in  true  knowledge.  If  my  reasoning  be 
clear,  I  need  but  a  few  words  to  enforce  it  on  all  who 
have  an  interest  in  the  inquiries  that  busy  thought- 
ful men  of  our  own  time.  I  hope  that  my  view,  how- 
ever imperfect,  will  give  you  such  guiding  principles 
as  may  keep  you,  in  a  day  of  many  teachers  and 
many  creeds,  true  to  the  one  divine  Master.  It  is 
not  an  easy  task  to  keep  this  harmony  of  a  free  con- 
science with  authority.  It  is  a  path  between  the  rock 
of  tradition  and  the  quicksand  of  unbelief.  But  if 
you  have  learned  aright  the  living  character  of  that 
truth,  revealed  in  the  New  Testament,  it. will  direct 
you  in  its  study.  You  will  not  mistake  for  a  sound 
reason  the  mind  which  examines  it  without  any  knowl- 
edge of  its  spiritual  purpose,  or  with  a  merely  critical 
keenness  to  dissect  the  letter.  Such  study  will  end 
only  in  a  shallow  misinterpretation.  It  is  the  book 
which  teaches  the  history  of  God's  dealing  with  men, 
the  life  of  the  Redeemer,  and  the  law  of  duty  ;  and 
if  that  be  its  design,  it  must  demand  of  us  that  we  ap- 
proach it  with  a  reverent  heart.  Such  a  spirit  will 
not  check  the  love  of  honest  inquiry :  it  will  inspire 
it.  We  shall,  if  we  be  scholars,  whose  work  it  is  to 
explore  this  mine,  carry  with  us  the  safety  lamp  of  a 


TJlc  Study  of  the  Scriptures .  301 

devout  wisdom.  We  shall  be  able  to  distinguish  be- 
tween the  essential  truth  it  reveals,  and  the  questions 
that  are  open  to  a  scientific  criticism  ;  we  shall  wel- 
come every  true  result  of  learning,  without  being  car- 
ried away  by  the  brilliant,  but  unproved  theories  of 
our  time.  We  shall  hold  fast  the  truth  we  know,  and 
keep  a  calm  trust  in  it  amidst  the  changes  of  opinion. 
This  is  the  reasonable  freedom  of  a  Christian  mind.  It 
has  no  kindred  with  the  free  religion  which  thinks  it 
possesses  truth  because  it  has  renounced  all  positive 
creed.  There  is  no  Christian  freedom  save  in  the 
truth.  And  it  is  as  far  on  the  other  side  from  the 
spirit  which  accepts  the  traditions  of  men  instead  of 
an  intelligent  and  honest  knowledge.  Let  us  never 
be  of  those  whom  Hooker  describes  as  minds  that 
"  use  reason  only  to  disgrace  reason."  There  may  be 
a  rationalism,  which  weaves  its  theories  and  calls 
them  revelation — a  rationalism  as  fatal  to  the  sim- 
plicity of  Christ  as  unbelief.  Whatever  its  name, 
whether  of  infallible  Pontiff  or  Protestant  system,  it 
must  never  usurp  the  authority  we  can  only  give  to 
our  Divine  Master.  Let  us  gladly  promote  all  sound 
knowledge.  Let  us  hail  without  fear  that  noblest 
work  of  our  time,  which  will  give  the  Church  a  faith- 
ful revision  of  the  Scriptures,  assured  that  It  will 
reveal  more  truly  the  mind  of  its  Author.  Let  us 
defend  the  faith  always  with  the  weapons  of  fair 
argument,    of    manly    learning  ;    for   we    know   that 


302  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

"  we  can  do   nothing   against  the  truth,  but    for  the 
truth." 

This  is  our  right  and  responsibility  in  the  study  of 
the  Holy  Scripture.  It  is  the  gift  of  God.  The  Word 
is  not  bound  ;  it  is  free  as  the  mind  of  Christ :  it 
fears  no  criticism  ;  it  asks  no  earthworks  of  false  de- 
fence;  it  is  strong  enough  to  conquer  the  traditions 
and  the  unbelief  of  men  ;  it  lay  buried  for  centuries, 
alive  in  its  charmed  sleep,  within  the  sarcophagus  of 
a  Latin  superstition,  and  it  came  forth,  like  its  Lord, 
to  the  better  resurrection  ;  it  has  led  the  march  of  all 
knowledge,  all  civilization,  and  opens  to-day  in  fuller 
light  the  mind  of  Him  in  whom  are  hid  all  treasures 
of  wisdom.  But  it  is  a  gift  which  links  our  freedom 
with  our  obedience  ;  and  as  we  use  or  abuse  it,  we 
shall  answer  to  its  Giver.  If  we  obscure,  if  we  dis- 
tort, if  we  despise  or  neglect  it,  we  can  make  the  light 
darkness ;  if  we  read,  know,  follow  it,  in  His  spirit 
who  inspired  its  truth,  we  shall  gain  the  knowledge 
which  is  eternal  life. 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  THEOLOGY. 

There  is  no  more  marked  feature  in  the  religion  of 
our  time,  than  the  tendency  to  divorce  Christian  truth 
from  the  theological  formularies  in  which  it  has  long 
been  embodied.  Undoubtedly  it  shows  in  some  of  its 
shapes  a  decay  of  faith ;  but  when  we  carefully  study 
the  fact  on  all  sides,  such  a  solution  cannot  wholly  ex- 
plain it.  It  appears  not  only  in  writers  like  Matthew 
Arnold,  who  find  in  Hebrew  or  Christian  ''literature" 
no  dogma  whatever,  but  in  Protestant  bodies,  hitherto 
the  stoutest  defenders  of  their  own  confessions  ;  in  the 
gradual  decline  of  tenets,  like  those  of  predestination 
and  reprobation,  so  often  the  war-cry  of  sects  after 
the  Reformation  ;  in  movements  toward  the  harmony 
of  old  school  and  new ;  in  the  larger  place  given  in 
theological  education  to  doctrinal  history,  above  the 
systems  of  one  school  or  time;  in  the  general  indif- 
ference to  controversial  preaching;  and  even,  I  say  it 
gladly,  in  the  "  unconscious  philosophy"  (for  the 
"philosophy  of  the  unconscious  "  plays  a  larger  part 
in  our  Christianity  than  we  know)  of  the  stiffest 
Anglican,  who  calls  himself  the  champion  of  dogmatic 
unity,  but  will  give  up   all  Articles  and  retreat  to  the 

303 


304  EpocJis  in  Church  History. 

"  Nicene  basis."  We  must  surely  see,  therefore,  in 
such  a  change  the  legitimate,  though  unripe  fruit  of 
Church  history.  It  means  that  Protestanism  has 
through  a  long,  harsh  experience  reached  a  further 
step,  and  is  learning  its  need  of  a  unity  of  Christendom, 
which  can  never  come  out  of  rival  metaphysical  sys- 
tems. That  unity  is  far  from  an  accomplished  fact. 
It  can  never  be  found  in  the  surrender  of  all  creed. 
But  it  is,  as  I  hold,  to  come,  through  His  providence 
who  guides  the  truth,  out  of  the  earnest  struggle 
which  is  the  distinctive  feature  of  our  age.  In  such  a 
view  of  the  tendency,  a  sound  scholar  can  neither 
accept  the  notion  of  those  who  reject  dogm"a,  nor  the 
equal  error  of  those  who  will  cure  our  scepticism  by 
reviving  the  dogmatic  tyranny  which  begot  the  revolt 
against  it.  The  want  of  our  Church  education  to-day 
is  a  thorough  study  of  the  mutual  relations  of  revealed 
faith  and  theological  science.  It  is  an  intricate  subject ; 
but  even  a  clear  outline  may  reconcile  honest  thinkers, 
and  perhaps  help  to  cure  some  common  mistakes  of 
our  Anglican  theory.  ' 

We  must,  then,  at  the  outset,  look  at  the  Christian 
truth  in  each  sphere  of  primitive  faith  and  theological 
inquiry ;  for  we  can  only  thus  know  their  harmony, 
and  the  cause  of  our  misconceptions.  It  is  the  ground 
from  which  we  begin  all  such  study,  that  the  religion 
of  Christ  was  given  in  the  form  of  a  living  history. 
Revelation  contains  the  positive  truth  of  Him  who 


Christian  Faith  and  Theology.  305 

came  the  divine  Saviour  of  mankind.  But  it  was  no 
system  of  speculative  wisdom  concerning  the  nature 
of  God,  the  mental  or  moral  powers,  such  as  is  taught 
in  the  school  of  science  ;  it  was  the  declaration  of  one 
fact,  the  redemption  of  men  from  sin  and  their  fellow- 
ship as  children  of  God.  All  the  doctrines  which  are 
the  teaching  of  Christianity,  are  to  be  viewed  in  the 
light  of  this  central  truth  of  redemption,  as  it  opens 
in  its  manifold  relations  the  knowledge  of  God  as  a 
Father,  our  moral  condition,  our  duty,  and  our  destiny. 
And  as  it  is  thus  in  its  essence  no  philosophy,  but  a 
practical  and  living  Gospel,  so  it  is  embodied  for  us 
in  the  New  Testament,  in  that  record  which  always 
preserves  it  as  real  history.  We  read  its  word  as  it 
fell  from  His  own  lips  ;  as  it  was  incarnated  in  His  own 
sinless  person.  That  creed  which  He  gave  as  the  in- 
heritance of  the  Church,  the  name  of  Father,  Son  and 
Holy  Ghost,  was  no  metaphysical  formula,  but  a  seal 
of  the  faith  into  which  all  were  to  be  *'  discipled  " 
and  baptized,  as  children  of  one  Father  and  brethren 
of  one  household.  Nor  is  this  conception  of  primitive 
Christianity  less  plain  as  we  pass  to  the  Church  of 
the  Acts  and  Epistles.  There  is  the  same  simple, 
living  unity  of  belief;  and  although  we  see  in  the 
Pauline  Epistles  as  well  as  elsewhere,  the  signs  of  an 
organized  body,  an  ''Apostles'  teaching  and  fellow- 
ship," yet  there  is  no  theology  in  any  just  meaning  of 
the  word.     The  faith  is  no  tradition  in  the  sense  of  a 


3o6  EpocJis  in  CJnirch  History. 

digest  of  doctrines,  of  articles  and  confessions  ;  the 
epistles  are  the  current  historic  writing  of  the  early- 
Church,  and  to  be  studied  in  their  connection  with 
the  life  of  that  age  if  we  would  know  their  worth  to  us. 
Such  is  the  view  of  the  Christian  faith  which  divides 
us  at  the  threshold  from  any  who  make  it  in  its  essence 
the  revelation  of  a  system  of  abstract  doctrines.  The 
difference  is  at  the  root.  The  one  view  changes  it 
into  a  speculative  theology  in  its  original  substance,  or 
a  traditional  simima  of  the  Church.  This  makes  it 
more  than  doctrine,  a  divine  history;  no  ''  Gospel  of 
notions,"  but  the  Word  in  the  conscience  and  life  of 
men.  The  facts  of  our  sonship,  our  sin,  our  redemp- 
tion, of  the  incarnate  life  and  grace  of  Christ  are  the 
same  now  as  when  they  were  given  in  the  sacred  his- 
tory. The  catholicity  of  faith  lies  in  the<  character  of 
such  a  truth  ;  for  only  thus  can  it  be  held  ''  every- 
where, always  and  by  all."  It  cannot  rest  on  council 
or  creed  as  its  ultimate  ground.  And  it  is  because 
this  fact  is  forgotten  that  the  Scriptures  have  been 
made,  instead  of  the  book  of  divine  history,  the  re- 
pertory of  proof  texts.  I  need  not  dwell  on  examples. 
Thus  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  has  been  so  often 
distorted  into  a  system  of  "  election "  in  the  Cal- 
vinistic  sense,  or  diluted  into  an  Arminian  theory 
of  '*  contingency,"  when,  if  read  in  the  light  of  true 
historic  criticism,  it  unfolds  the  Catholic  truth  of  the 
calling  of  redeemed  men  into  one  household  of  God  in 


Christian  Faith  and  Theology,  307 

Christ,  instead  of  a  little  race-election  in  Abraham. 
Every  doctrine,  whether  of  the  Trinity,  the  atone- 
ment, regeneration,  eternal  life  and  death,  has  been  in 
one  school  or  another  taken  out  of  this  living  connec- 
tion with  Scripture,  and  identified  with  a  system.  If 
there  be  one  fruitful  result  of  Biblical  science,  it  is 
that  it  has  taught  us  to  read  the  New  Testament  not 
as  an  arsenal  of  weapons  for  the  defence  of  our  later 
structures  of  doctrine  or  church  polity,  but  in  its  own 
light  as  the  history  of  a  truth  more  divine  than  all 
"bodies  of  divinity." 

We  can  thus  pass  to  the  relation  of  revealed  faith 
to  theology.  It  is  the  necessary  demand  of  the  Chris- 
tian intellect,  as  it  studies  on  manifold  sides  the  prob- 
lems of  the  nature  of  God,  of  our  human  being,  of 
eternal  life,  that  it  must  have  its  scientific  exposition. 
But  a  Christian  theology  has  thus  within  itself  two 
elements.  It  can  never  be  a  mere  system  of  specula- 
tion, but  must  viev/  such  questions  always  in  relation 
to  its  own  central  divine  truth.  Yet  it  must  present 
this  truth  in  the  forms  of  human  reasoning,  and  there- 
fore it  must  be  mingled  vv'ith  the  philosophic  concep- 
tions and  methods  of  its  time.  As  such,  therefore, 
theological  science  is  a  history,  which  we  are  to  trace 
through  the  Avhole  development  of  the  Christian 
Church.  It  is  not  a  fixed,  unchanging  revelation,  nor 
is  it  the  arbitrary  dogma  of  an  ecclesiastical  body. 
But  it   is  not    on   this  account  a  mass   of  confused. 


3o8  Epochs  in  Church  History, 

warring  opinions  ;  It  is  the  exposition  of  the  one  Word 
of  God,  as  it  has  passed  through  the  successive  phases 
of  Christian  thought.  It  obeys  the  laws  of  orderly- 
science.  There  are  thus  certain  guiding  conditions  of 
doctrinal  growth.  In  the  first  place,  there  is  an  order 
of  development  in  the  character  of  revealed  truth 
itself.  Theology  begins  with  the  doctrine  of  the  In- 
carnation, the  nature  of  God  in  Christ.  Its  next  step 
is  the  study  of  the  nature  of  man  in  his  original 
powers  and  sinful  condition.  This  view  must  lead  to 
the  doctrine  of  redemption,  the  relation  of  God  to 
man  In  the  work  of  a  mediator ;  and  It  is  last  com- 
pleted in  the  relation  of  man  to  this  revelation  of 
grace.  In  this  light  the  modern  divisions  of  the 
science — theology,  anthropology,  soterlology — are 
verified  by  the  study  of  doctrinal  history.  I  shall 
only  beg  leave  to  differ  in  one  weighty  point.  Our 
last  division,  which,  as  I  shall  show,  belongs  to 
Protestant  thought,  should  be  Christian  ethics,  em- 
bracing the  whole  domain  of  personal  faith  and  the 
connection  of  the  spiritual  life  with  the  Church  as  a 
social  body.  But  this  order  of  thought,  again,  has  its 
expression  in  the  successive  periods  of  the  Church. 
Theology  finds  in  the  peculiar  genius  and  culture  of 
each  the  soil  of  its  growth.  The  subtle,  speculative 
mind  of  the  Greek,  educated  in  the  ideas  of  Plato  ; 
the  practical  life  of  the  Latin,  nursed  in  the  atmo- 
sphere of  law  ;  the  scholastic  age,  under  the  mastery 


Christian  Faith  and  Theology.  309 

of  Aristotelian  logic  ;  the  freer,  more  inward  spirit  of 
Protestantism  give  their  stamp  to  the  result.  We  see 
in  each  only  a  part  in  the  whole  of  this  theological 
process  ;  in  each  one-sided  modes  of  inquiry  and  imper- 
fect gains.  But  there  is  no  less  essential  unity.  That 
unity  is  in  the  living  faith  of  the  Church  ;  and  in  the 
attainment,  age  after  age,  of  clearer  and  more  com- 
pleted knowledge,  as  the  false  dogmatisms,  the  partial 
systems,  are  sloughed  off,  while  no  positive  truth  is 
lost.  Such  is  the  true  law  of  historic  growth.  It  is 
not,  as  with  Mr.  Newman,  the  development  of  a  mass 
of  uncritical  tradition  in  the  Roman  communion ; 
a  theory  which  can  twist  a  few  sentences  of  Script- 
ure into  the  worship  of  Mary,  or  consecrate  any 
fancies  of  the  Fathers  as  Catholic  verities.  But 
it  is  the  sound,  reasonable  study  of  the  mind  of 
the  Church,  its  struggles,  its  patient  inquiries,  its 
triumphs  ;  one  unbroken  commentary  on  the  mind  of 
Christ. 

Such  a  view  of  the  character  of  Christian  theology' 
we  are  now  to  verify  in  a  rapid  look  at  its  history.  It 
was  the  necessity  of  the  Church,  as  it  passed  after  the 
Apostolic  time  out  of  its  unreflective  childhood  to 
riper  thought,  to  come  into  contact  with  the  existing 
ideas  of  Jewish  and  Gentile  culture.  There  v/ere 
speculative  errors,  such  as  Ave  trace  already  in  the 
Epistles  to  the  Colossians  and  that  of  St.  John,  soon 
to  rioen  into  full  s^rown  Gnostic  schools ;  there  were 


310  Epochs  in  CJmrch  History. 

the  strange  admixtures  of  the  Greek  mind  with  the 
East  in  the  Neo-Platonism  of  the  time.  It  was  in  con- 
flict with  these  that  the  truth  of  Christ  must  strive, 
and  win  its  just  triumph  over  the  intellect  of  the  world, 
as  well  as  over  its  conscience  and  life.  Yet  it  is  not  at 
once  we  find  the  systematic  fruits  of  such  a  growth. 
The  earliest  literature,  beside  the  formation  of  the  New 
Testament  Canon,  is  seen  in  little  else  than  the  simple 
letters  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers.  Nor  do  we  have  the 
up-building  in  any  proper  sense  of  a  theology  in  the 
thinkers  of  the  next  period,  like  Clement,  Origen,  Ter- 
tuUian,  who  were  mainly  busied  with  apologetics 
against  the  heathen  philosophy,  or  in  exposing  the 
fantastic  speculations  which  had  ripened  in  the  Gnos- 
tic sects.  These  are  the  Stromata,  to  use  the  phrase 
of  Clement,  out  of  which  soon  arises  the  clearer  view 
of  the  fundamental  ideas  of  a  Christian  theology.  The 
true  symbol  of  that  unity  which  the  Church  had 
reached  is  to  be  found  in  the  Apostles'  Creed.  Tt  is 
characteristic  of  it  that  it  has  no  date,  but  is  really 
the  record  of  an  oral  confession,  varying  in  its  detail 
as  we  gather  it  from  Irenseus  or  Tertullian,  yet  sub- 
stantially the  same.  That  symbol  gives  us  the  very 
lineaments  of  the  childlike  mind  just  passing  to  con- 
scious manhood.  It  is  simple,  positive,  historic.  We 
have  only  to  compare  it  with  the  later  creed  of  Nice, 
to  see  the  years  of  reflective  thought  that  lie  between 
its  plain  declaration  of  the  Father  or  the  Christ  of  the 


Christian  Faith  and  Theology.  311 

Gospels,  and  the  scientific  definitions  of  the  "  one  sub- 
stance." 

But  we  observe  now  the  distinct  gathering  of  all 
the  philosophic  tendencies  within  the  Church  into  one 
channel.  It  was  in  the  question  of  the  nature  of  God 
that  the  Greek  intellect  for  ages  had  found  the  aim  of 
its  most  subtle  inquiry;  and  hence,  both  by  the  relig- 
ious and  mental  necessity  of  the  time,  the  doctrine 
of  the  Incarnation  absorbed  the  life  of  the  Greek 
Church  down  to  its  decline.  There  are  indeed  through- 
out the  pages  of  those  Fathers  many  discussions  of 
the  nature  of  man,  redemption  and  kindred  truths ; 
perhaps  I  may  say  a  richer  vein  of  philosophic  genius, 
as  it  was  fed  by  the  ideas  of  Plato,  than  in  the  sterner 
systems  of  the  West.  But  the  one  lasting  gift  to  the 
theology  of  the  Church,  the  key  of  all  those  conflicts 
and  triumphs,  is  in  the  doctrine  of  God  in  Christ.  We 
see  the  two  poles  of  opinion  in  the  Ebionite,  who 
regarded  Christ  on  his  human  side  as  an  emanation  of 
the  divine  wisdom,  and  the  Sabellian,  who  obscured 
the  personality  of  Christ  and  made  the  Trinity  a  mode 
of  manifestation  ;  but  we  trace  in  the  early  Fathers  no 
full  adjustment  of  the  question,  until  Arianism  brings 
into  sharp  antagonism  the  truth  and  the  error.  The 
mind  of  the  Church  had  grown  ripe  for  thorough  defi- 
nition. It  accepted  the  doctrine  that  the  Son  of 
God,  the  Saviour,  can  be  no  created  being,  but  is  the 
God-man,  the  Word  made  flesh.    But  the  controversy, 


312  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

although  the  work  of  theologians,  was  not  merely  a 
speculative  thing;  it  was  the  clear  statement  of  a 
truth,  which  lived  in  the  faith  of  the  whole  body. 
There  was  thus  a  further  step  from  the  exposition  of 
the  doctrine  to  its  fixed  character  as  the  symbol  of  the 
Church.  Athanasius  only  gave  voice  to  the  universal 
conviction  ;  and  the  creed  became  an  historical  land- 
mark, to  be  yet  further  completed  by  the  later  deci- 
sions concerning  the  person  and  will  of  Christ. 

In  this  earliest  example  we  have  the  principle  of 
the  method  which  we  must  apply  to  the  general  study 
of  theology.  It  meets  the  two  misconceptions  of  it. 
We  see  the  untruth  of  the  large  class  of  critics  down 
to  Baur,  who  have  sought  to  trace  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  to  the  infusion  of  Neo-Platonic  ideas  into  the 
simpler  religion.  Undoubtedly  the  Christian  the- 
ology was  deeply  indebted  for  its  modes  of  specula- 
tive thought  to  the  Greek  wisdom  ;  and  we  find  its 
conceptions  of  the  divine  Word,  of  substance  and  per- 
son, embodied  In  the  creed.  But  the  doctrine  was  not 
the  creation  of  a  new  faith.  It  affirmed  no  more  than 
the  Gospels,  that  the  Son  of  God  was  the  only  be- 
crotten,  the  Word  in  whom  dwelt  the  fulness  of  the 
Father ;  God  of  God  ;  Light  of  light.  Yet,  on  the 
other  hand,  we  are  not  to  suppose  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  In  Its  defined  theological  form  was  held 
by  the  early  believers.  It  was  the  wish  of  Jeremy 
Taylor  that  so  subtle  a  phrase  had  never  been  Intro- 


Christian  Faith  and   Theology.  313 

duced  into  the  Christian  faith.  The  very  words,  sub- 
stance and  person,  are  only  finite  efforts  of  our  phi- 
losophy to  comprehend  the  infinite  nature  of  God. 
The  living  truth  of  the  Incarnation,  as  it  speaks  from 
the  person  and  sinless  grace  of  the  Son  of  God,  is  the 
object  of  faith  ;  and  the  minute  questions  of  will  and 
nature  are  only  the  bones  of  the  theological  skeleton. 
There  may  be  divines  like  Newman,  who  in  an  ecstasy 
of  scholastic  devotion  calls  the  Athanasian  Creed  a 
hymn  of  praise;  but  our  ideas  of  hymnology  are  quite 
different.  We  do  not  confound  faith  and  science,  but 
give  each  its  place.  It  is  thus  we  understand  the 
unity  of  the  Christian  truth  with  the  theology  of 
Nice.  It  was  the  purpose  of  Bishop  Bull  in  his  De- 
fensio^  to  show  the  consensus  of  the  Church  in. regard 
to  this  doctrine  ;  but  the  defect  of  his  reasoning,  al- 
though essentially  true,  is  that,  while  he  proves  in 
earlier  or  later  writers  one  orthodox  belief,  he  does 
not  point  out  the  plain  differences  in  the  growth  of 
thought  before  the  Nicene  time.  It  is  only  partly 
true  that  the  definitions  were  called  out  by  heresies, 
since  much  of  church  opinion  was  no  heresy  before  the 
decisions,  but  what  Athanasius  called  the  *' athletic  " 
of  the  time.  Justin  Martyr  and  Origen  leaned  toward 
the  theory  of  emanation.  Athanasius  himself,  in  one 
passage,  inclines  to  the  Monothelite  view;  and  his 
ideas  of  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  very 
ambiguous.  There  can  be  no  greater  error  than  the 
14 


314  EpocJis  in  Church  History. 

notion,  which  has  been  fastened  on  many  minds  by 
our  Oxford  school,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
was  a  theological  deposit,  held  by  the  ''concurrent 
authority  "  of  the  Church  and  settled  by  the  vote  of 
an  episcopal  majority.  The  revelation  of  Father,  Son 
and  Holy  Spirit  has  its  fullest  witness  in  the  record  of 
the  New  Testament  ;  and  hence  this  symbol  remains 
for  us,  beyond  all  formularies,  the  greatest  monument 
of  doctrinal  history.  We  see  in  it  the  character  of  a 
theological  age;  but  we  keep  it  as  alike  venerable,  be- 
cause it  embodies  the  deepest  truth  of  Holy  Scripture, 
and  because  it  declares  the  unity  of  the  Church,  while 
it  was  yet  unbroken  by  discords. 

Such  is  the  law  we  may  carry  through  the  whole 
after  history.  Our  sketch  must  be  brief.  We  turn  to 
the  period  of  the  Latin  Church  ;  and  in  accordance 
with  the  Western  mind,  less  speculative,  educated  in 
the  legal  training  of  Rome,  is  the  character  of  the 
system  it  builds.  The  problem  of  man,  of  freedom 
and  divine  grace,  of  sin  as  the  universal  fact  of  history, 
employs  its  master  intellect  Augustin.  His  doctrine 
of  the  organic  unity  of  the  race,  as  the  inheritor  of 
evil,  and  its  restored  unity  in  Christ,  the  head  of 
humanity,  is  the  root-truth  which  grew  into  the 
whole  theology  of  his  own  Church,  and  passed  down  to 
the  Protestantism  of  Calvin.  But  its  defect  is  equally 
clear.  The  Platonism  of  the  great  teacher  led  him  to 
mingle  his  ideas  of  substance  with  his  conception  of 


Christian  Faith  and  Theology,  315 

man,  and  thus  to  adopt  that  notion  of  corporate  life 
which  ended  at  last  in  an  arbitrary  theory  of  inability, 
of  irresistible  grace,  and  regeneration  through  the 
sacrament.  The  personal  and  ethical  side  of  the  truth 
was  left  incomplete.  It  is  the  next  step  in  this  de- 
velopment of  the  Latin  system  we  see  in  the  theology 
of  Anselm.  His  doctrine  of  the  atonement  is  the 
application  of  the  same  profound  view  of  human 
nature.  It  answers  the  question.  Cur  Dens  Homo? 
Why  did  God  become  man  ?  But  we  have  in  this 
severe  thinker  not  only  the  idea  of  his  greater  master, 
we  find  the  stamp  of  that  forensic  education  which 
Maine  has  ingeniously  noticed  in  his  work  on  Ancient 
Law.  Much  of  the  theological  technology  which  we 
use  to-day  with  little  thought  of  its  source,  was  so  be- 
queathed to  the  literature  of  the  Church.  The  view 
of  Anselm  was  a  noble  contribution  to  Christian  doc- 
trine. It  presented  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  as  necessary 
in  the  work  of  redemption  ;  but  it  regarded  it  only  as 
a  penalty  of  divine  law  ;  it  did  not  view  it  as  the  free 
offering  of  Christ's  love,  nor  did  it  touch  the  personal 
relation  of  the  penitent,  purified  conscience,  through 
which  we  receive  the  life  of  the  Redeemer  within  us. 
Thus  the  error  went  with  the  truth.  We  perceive  its 
fruits  in  the  scholastic  system  which  followed  it.  We 
are  never  to  lose  sight  of  the  wonderful  intellectual 
power  of  tha  tage,  or  the  debt  we  owe  to  its  thinkers, 
from  Aquinas  to  the  Mystics,  who  prepared  the  way 


3i6  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

for  a  more  spiritual  teaching;  but  the  Church  had 
reached  the  point  where  its  faith  had  become  a  meta- 
physical Summa,  encrusted  in  Aristotelian  logic  ;  and 
its  religion  a  corporate  life,  fed  by  the  grace  of  sacra- 
ments. 

We  are  thus  prepared  to  know  the  meaning  of  the 
Protestant  theology.  No  blinder  error  can  be  named 
than  that  which  condemns  the  Reformation  as  the 
overturn  of  positive  truth.  The  twin  doctrines  which 
are  its  corner-stone,  that  of  justification  by  faith  and 
the  sufficiency  of  Scripture,  were  the  necessary  com- 
pletion of  Christian  theology  ;  the  onward  step  in  the 
ideas  which  had  been  working  in  the  mind  of  the 
Church  ;  the  advance  of  the  conscience  and  spiritual 
life  beyond  the  sacramental  system  of  the  past.  There 
was  not  a  positive  doctrine  of  God,  of  sin,  of  atone- 
ment, of  grace,  which  was  rejected  by  the  Reformers. 
Indeed  their  error  was,  that  they  had  not  outgrown 
the  habits  of  scholastic  thought ;  and  while  they  broke 
the  ecclesiastical  fetters,  the  sterner  thinkers  like  Cal- 
vin retained  many  such  tenets  as  that  of  absolute  de- 
crees, bequeathed  from  Augustln.  The  theological 
activity  of  Protestantism  has  been  its  evil  and  good 
together.  It  has  sought  unity  In  a  metaphysical 
Christianity ;  and  its  rival  confessions  have  broken 
its  spiritual  life.  Yet  while  we  are  not  to  defend  its 
divisions,  Ave  can  see  its  real  character  with  clearer 
eyes  than  a  Bossuet  In  his  Variations,  or  the  narrow 


Christian  Faith  and  Theology,  317 

Churchman  of  our  time.  We  can  see  under  its  partial 
systems  the  one  essential  aim  Vv^hich  links  it  with  the 
whole  progress  of  doctrinal  history.  The  ethical  side 
of  Christianity,  as  I  said  at  the  outset,  which  embraces 
the  relation  of  the  personal  faith  to  the  Church,  the 
free  study  of  the  Word  of  fjod  to  authority,  is  the 
work  of  Protestantism.  It  cannot  return  to  the  unity 
of  an  infallible  body.  That  end  can  only  come  when 
it  has  passed  beyond  its  speculative  differences  to  a 
truer  conception  of  organic  unity  than  is  found  in  any 
of  its  divisions.  It  must  learn  that  Christianity  is  not 
shut  within  Dort  or  Augsburg.  But  its  doctrinal  and 
spiritual  activities  are  part  of  the  life  of  the  Church, 
and  there  can  be  no  reunion  of  Christendom  which  is 
not  the  result  of  its  movement. 

With  this  study  of  the  history  of  doctrine,  we  are 
now  ready  to  sum  those  principles  which  we  can  ap- 
ply to  the  questions  that  concern  our  own  time.  We 
have  learned  the  harmony  existing  between  Christian 
faith  and  theological  inquiry.  There  has  been  and  is 
in  all  ages  an  unchanged  unity  of  revealed  truth.  It 
abides  in  the  Word  of  God,  which  contains  all  that  is 
necessary  to  salvation  ;  it  abides  by  the  presence  of 
that  Spirit,  who  bears  witness  in  each  conscience  to 
the  same  facts  of  sin  and  need,  the  same  gift  of  love 
in  a  Redeemer,  the  same  laws  of  duty,  and  the  same 
hope  of  life  eternal.  But  there  is  with  these  also  a 
constant  growth   of  Christian   learning,  which  is  em- 


3i8  Epochs  in  Church  History, 

bodied  in  Biblical  criticism  and  doctrinal  science. 
These  three  elements,  the  Word,  the  spiritual  life, 
the  tradition  of  the  Church,  make  up  the  whole  of  the 
existing  Christianity  in  each  successive  period.  There 
is  no  contradiction  between  them,  but  the  relation  is 
the  same  as  in  all  spheres  of  knowledge.  Science  reg- 
isters the  movement  of  the  stars,  but  it  does  not  cre- 
ate the  stars ;  and  while  a  Laplace  makes  his  map 
of  the  heavens,  the  seaman  guides  his  ship  over  the 
waters  by  the  same  light.  Christian  science  does  not 
create  or  add  any  truth  which  is  not  essentially  in  the 
revelation,  but  it  has  opened  and  is  still  opening  its 
fuller  meaning.  Doctrinal  unity,  therefore,  is  to  be 
found  in  the  connection  of  its  truths  with  each  other. 
There  can  be  no  fixed  or  infallible  character  in  the 
system  of  one  age.  The  Word  of  God  cannot  be  shut 
up  by  its  Interpretations ;  nor  can  the  Church  claim  a 
**  concurrent  authority  "  with  it.  The  truth  must  be 
always  open  to  criticism,  and  the  imperfect  Ideas  of 
the  past  corrected  by  fresher  and  fuller  inquiry.  No 
age  can  exactly  copy  the  modes  of  thought  of  another 
older  one,  or  have  precisely  the  same  problems  before 
it,  but  it  must  receive  the  wisdoms  of  the  fathers  in 
their  adjustment  with  Its  own  further  results.  We 
cannot  reproduce  the  speculative  or  practical  life 
which  created  an  Athanasius  or  an  Augustin  ;  we  have 
not  the  exact  errors  of  an  Arius  or  a  Pelagids.  But 
it  is  this  very  change  in  which  lies  at  once  our  prog- 


Christian  Faith,  and   Theology.  319 

ress,  yet  our  continaity  of  growth.  The  commen- 
taries of  learning  pass  downward  to  us  ;  the  decisions 
of  the  wise  are  embodied  in  confessions  and  symbolic 
books  for  the  preservation  of  a  sound  belief,  and  have 
their  due  authority.  We  do  not  now  accept  the  al- 
legorical method  of  Augustin  as  our  canon  of  exege- 
sis ;  we  reject  much  of  the  reasoning  of  Basil  or  Anselm  ; 
but  we  receive  whatever  of  genuine  learning  they  have 
left  us.  'Such  is  the  plain  principle  of  a  Christian  sci- 
ence ;  and  where  this  harmony  exists  of  a  free  intelli- 
gence with  the  recognition  of  a  wise  authority,  we 
have  the  healthy  condition  of  the  Church. 

But  we  learn,  again,  the  cause  of  all  discord  between 
faith  and  theology  in  the  loss  of  this  relation.  Let 
the  traditional  system  be  put  instead  of  this  living 
growth,  or  let  the  speculative  view  of  one  age  or  school 
be  received  as  the  absolute  rule  of  faith,  and  the  re- 
sult is  a  separation  between  doctrine  and  life.  It  is 
as  needful  for  us  to  read  this  fact  in  the  history  of  the 
past  as  to  read  its  harmony.  We  see  it  in  each  time 
when  the  formative  power  of  Christian  theology  has 
become  withered.  It  was  so  with  the  Greek  Church, 
when  the  truth  of  the  Incarnation  had  been  changed 
into  a  shadow  fight  of  metaphysical  subtleties,  when, 
as  Basil  describes  it,  the  shopman  in  Constantinople 
gabbled  about  substance  and  person,  and  orthodox 
bigots  like  Cyril  upheld  their  metaphysics  by  an- 
athema.    Heraclius  was  busy  in  reconciling  the  Mono- 


320  Epochs  in  CJnirch  History. 

physlte  quarrel  at  the  hour  when  the  debased  empire 
fell.  Orthodoxy  had  no  life  to  keep  the  courtier  or 
the  people  from  the  most  shameless  vices.  It  was  so 
with  the  close  of  the  Latin  age.  When  the  Real 
Presence  meant  a  scholastic  dogma,  there  was  no  life 
of  Christ  in  the  faith  or  morals  of  the  worshippers. 
Nor  must  we  forget,  again,  that  there  is  the  most 
direct  step  from  such  dogmatism  to  rationalism.  Ra- 
tionalism is  only  the  decomposition  of  the  dead  tradi- 
tion. Each  stage  of  the  process  is  plain.  The  worn- 
out  doctrine  loses  its  hold  on  devout  minds  ;  it  changes 
first  to  a  mysticism,  which  keeps  the  formulas  but 
gives  them  a  free  interpretation,  and  the  bold  denial 
soon  follows.  Nothing  is  more  striking  than- the  fact 
that  the  Latin  Church,  with  all  its  boast  of  dogmatic 
unity,  produced  within  its  own  bosom,  from  Erigena 
to  Pomponatius,  a  series  of  speculative  heresies,  from 
pantheism  to  the  most  undisguised  materialism,  far 
beyond  any  that  have  sprung  out  of  the  soil  of  Ger- 
many. Luther,  in  his  vehement  outcry  against  the 
school  theology,  only  echoes  the  protest  of  our  own 
Latimer  and  Coverdale.  Yet  the  same  process  was 
seen  in  the  Church  of  Luther,  and  the  petrified  the- 
ology of  justification  created  its  formal  believers,  fol- 
lowed by  its  unbelievers.  We  have,  again,  in  the  the- 
ology of  New  England  the  Puritan  repetition  of  the 
scholastic  age,  when  the  hard-headed  people  were  fed 
on  the   "  five  points,"   and  the  treatise  on   "•  the  will," 


Christ i ait  Faith  and  Theology,  321 

based  on  Locke,  not  St.  Paul,  was  the  orthodox  Gospel. 
Unitarlanism  was  the  robust  reaction  against  it,  and 
did  its  work  of  negation  well.  But  I  will  not  add  ex- 
amples. It  is  the  principle  we  too  often  forget  in  our 
study  of  theology.  The  most  obstinate  vice  of  divines 
is  in  identifying  the  empiric  system  of  a  time  with 
Revelation.  It  seems  a  strange  absurdity  to-day, 
when  we  think  how  the  controversy  of  the  Eucharist 
is  kept  up  as  fiercely  as  ever,  and  some  Doctor  irrefra- 
gabilis  teaches  his  theory  question  of  impanation  or 
objective  presence;  yet  the  whole  rests  on  a  scholastic 
notion  of  substance  which  has  been  surrendered  ever 
since  the  day  of  Descartes.  Theology  takes  the  de- 
funct metaphysical  ideas  and  embalms  them  in  its 
mummy  case.  We  might  apply  the  same  test  to  many 
of  our  views  of  doctrine.  It  is  hence  that  the  divorce 
comes  between  philosophic  science  and  traditional 
learning,  until  it  ends  at  last  in  utter  unbelief. 

In  this  light  we  can  justly  solve  the  problem  of  our 
own  time.  It  is  an  age  of  conflicting  opinions,  and 
we  are  sorely  in  need  of  unity  ;  yet  if  our  study  of  the 
past  has  proved  anything,  it  is  surely  that  our  strife 
does  not  betoken  the  decay  of  Christian  truth,  but 
only  that  we  are  passing  through  a  transition  process. 
We  have  seen '  the  positive  meaning  and  aim  of  the 
Protestant  theology.  What  is  it,  then,  which  modern 
Protestanism  seeks?  It  is  the  true  reconcilement  be- 
tween personal   faith  and   doctrinal   systemi,  between 


322  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

the  essence  of  Christian  revelation  and  the  forms  in 
which  it  has  been  embodied,  between  the  principles  of 
freedom  and  authority.  And  are  any  of  the  phenom- 
ena of  such  a  period  strange  or  unaccountable  ? 
Surely  it  is  a  sign  of  real  progress  that  there  is  a  dis- 
position to  give  up  the  rival  and  sectarian  creeds  of 
the  past.  It  is  a  time  when  our  divines  are  learning 
that  the  technology  of  their  systems  does  not  touch 
the  grander  issues  of  Christianity,  that  they  have 
other  work  to  do  than  to  settle  the  extinct  errors  of 
Pelagianism,  or  the  disputes  of  moral  ability.  We 
meet  with  the  boldest  forms  of  unbelief,  yet  even 
these  have  done  in  this  respect  an  undesigned  benefit ; 
for  they  have  taught  us  that  the  battle  is  not  now  of 
substance  and  person,  or  of  the  two  wills  in  Christ, 
but  whether  Christ  be  a  myth  or  a  historic  personage 
at  all  ;  whether  in  truth  there  be  a  personal  God  or  a 
resurrection.  I  hail  it,  therefore,  as  the  healthiest  of 
symptoms, that  our  theological  literature  is  meeting  the 
need  in  a  livingway,  instead  of  giving  a  dull  adherence 
to  its  traditional  methods.  The  conflict  is  no  longer 
at  the  outposts,  but  at  the  gates  of  the  citadel.  It  is 
this  unity  in  a  common  Christianity  which  to-day 
draws  together  the  noblest  thinkers  of  all  commuifions, 
as  the  invasion  of''  the  great  king  "  made  Athens  and 
Sparta  one  Hellas.  There  is  no  less  positive  truth 
than  before,  but  there  are  deeper  questions  than  Nice, 
or  Trent,  or  Westminster  can  answer.     There  can  be 


Christian  Faith  and  Theology,  323 

only  one  way  in  which  the  cure  of  our  confusions  can 
be  found.  It  is  in  the  growth  of  a  sound  Bibhcal 
learning.  It  is  in  such  a  study  of  doctrinal  history, 
as  has  been  given  us  by  a  Miiller,  a  Dorner,  and  many 
among  our  later  English  scholars.  It  is  in  the  wise 
adjustment  of  revealed  truth  with  the  researches  of 
science.  It  is  in  the  more  comprehensive  knowledge 
of  the  history  of  the  Church,  as  it  is  knit  with  the  life 
of  Christian  civilization.  If  we  have  so  grasped  the 
relation  of  our  Christianity  to  the  mind  and  want  of 
our  time,  we  shall  be  in  no  danger  of  losing  our  hope 
as  to  the  issue  of  its  strifes,  for  we  shall  know  that 
these  are  the  conditions  of  its  life. 

And  such  a  view,  last  of  all,  settles  for  us  the  whole 
question,  which  perplexes  and  divides  so  many,  as  to 
the  principle  of  dogmatic  authority.  What,  it  is 
asked,  shall  be  our  ground  amid  this  chaos?  Is  there 
any  authority  in  the  Church  ?  And  if  so,  where  and 
what  is  it  ?  I  have  answered  it  already  in  the  whole 
structure  of  my  argument,  and  I  need  only  gather  it 
up.  If  it  be  true  that  such  unity  exists,  and  has  never 
been  lost,  in  the  essential  character  of  the  truth,  we  have 
the  wise  and  just  authority  we  need.  The  Church  re- 
tains the  symbols  of  its  faith.  It  witnesses  to  and 
keeps  this  unity,  this  catholic  unity  above  all  partial 
systems.  I  claim  that  in  thus  expounding  the  right 
relation  of  faith  to  theology  I  am  affirming  the  very 
principle  which  is  embodied  in  the  creed,  the  liturgy, 


324  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

the  history  of  the  English  Communion  ;  the  principle 
by  which  it  is  justly  superior  to  all  Protestant  bodies, 
by  which  it  stands  to-day,  if  we  be  true  to  it,  as  it 
stood  at  the  Reformation.  It  upheld  the  cardinal 
truths  of  Protestantism  ;  it  denied  the  infallibility  of 
councils,  and  made  the  Word  of  God  its  sole  arbiter; 
it  maintained  the  principle  of  a  personal,  justifying 
faith  against  the  sacramental  errors  of  the  Latin  sys- 
tem. Yet  it  kept  the  symbols  of  the  Apostles  and  of 
Nice  as  its  great  monuments;  it  made  its  Articles, 
broad  enough  to  join  Calvinist,  Lutheran,  Arminian  ; 
it  avoided  the  secondary  questions  which  split  the 
bodies  of  the  Continent  into  theological  sects.  Such 
was  the  spirit  and  law  it  bequeathed  to  us.  Such  is 
the  true  idea  of  catholic  unity  and  authority.  But  it 
is  one  we  should  be  very  careful  to  distinguish  from 
the  notipn  of  dogmatic  authority  fastened  on  us  by 
that  later  Oxford  theology,  to  which  we  owe,  alas ! 
the  worst  misconceptions  of  the  Church.  What  is  it 
that  our  self-styled  Anglo-Catholic  divines  teach  as 
their  catholicon  against  the  discords  of  the  time  ?  We 
are  gravely  told  that  our  Church  stands  apart  from 
Rome  and  from  all  Protestant  sects  as  the  keeper  of 
the  fixed,  unchangeable  deposit  of  doctrine  which 
was  settled  by  the  Nicene  council  and  those  which 
followed  it  to  the  close  of  the  conciliar  age,  and  has 
been  duly  handed  down  to  us  through  the  episcopate. 
The  *'  Nicene  basis"  and  the  episcopacy,  these  are  the 


Christian  Faith  and  Theology,  325 

centre  of  unity.  Nay,  we  read  in  a  late  consecration 
sermon  that  it  has  been  always  the  faith  of  the 
Church,  that  this  sacred  treasure  of  doctrinal  truth 
rests  chiefly  in  the  guardianship  of  the  episcopal 
authority.  Such  a  theory,  I  can  only  say,  is,  instead 
of  a  catholic  principle,  its  very  contradiction.  I 
gladly  recognize  the  element  of  truth  it  has  in  it.  It 
is  indeed  our  just  position  that  we  believe  in  the  unity 
of  the  faith,  not  in  a  Christianity  of  warring  theolo- 
gies. We  have  'a  thorough  reverence  for  the  symbol 
of  Nice.  But  when  we  identify  catholic  doctrine  with 
the  dogmatic  decision  of  one  past  age  ;  when  we  would 
ignore  all  problems  which  since  the  councils  have  em- 
ployed the  minds  of  Latin  and  Protestant  Christen- 
dom ;  when  we  deny  all  progress  from  the  past  to  the 
present,  dismiss  all  questions  of  Scriptural  criticism, 
of  theology  or  ethics,  and  fall  back  on  the  traditional 
deposit  of  the  Nicene  time,  we  have  not  the  element- 
ary idea  of  what  theology,  or  history,  or  catholicity 
means.  Such  a  notion  is  more  absurd  than  the  Rom- 
ish theory.  The  Roman  Church  believes  at  least  in  a 
living  interpreter ;  this  believes  in  no  truth,  no  Holy 
Spirit  in  the  body,  but  the  dead  remains  of  a  truth 
which  was  shut  up  forever  in  the  infallibility  of  the 
councils.  Indeed  I  know  no  source  from  which  this 
theory  can  be  borrowed,  save  from  the  Babylonian 
Talmud.  ''  When  Moses  came  down  from  Sinai," 
say  the  Rabbis,  ''he  recited  once  the   sacred  law  to 


326  Epochs  in  Church  History, 

Aaron  with  his  own  comment ;  then  he  recited  it  to 
the  two  sons  of  Aaron,  Eleazer  and  Ithamar;  and  as 
they  filed  to  right  and  left,  the  seventy  elders  entered 
and  Moses  recited  it  to  them.  Thus  the  law  was 
heard  four  times  by  Aaron,  thrice  by  his  sons,  and 
twice  by  the  elders ;  after  which,  Moses  retiring, 
Aaron  repeated  it  four  times ;  he  retiring,  his  sons 
repeated  it ;  and  when  they  had  gone,  the  elders 
repeated  it  to  the  people;  and  so  the  assembly  heard 
the  law  and  its  commentary  four  times."  Thus  the 
Nicene  Fathers  received  the  deposit,  handed  it  by 
turns  to  each  council,  each  council  to  the  Bishops, 
and  it  has  been  safely  kept  in  the  episcopal  casket 
unto  this  day.  I  have  not  so  read  Church  history.  I 
have,  as  I  trust,  deep  reverence  for  the  doctrines  of 
the  Church,  but  they  are  not  a  deposit.  I  have  true 
respect  for  the  episcopal  office,  and  wherever  I  find 
any  in  the  past  or  present  among  the  masters  of 
learning,  I  revere  them ;  but  I  am  not  sure  that  the 
special  grace  given  in  consecration  is  always  of  the 
sort  which  is  needed  for  the  ''  Ecclcsia  docens.'*  If 
such  a  theory  of  dogmatic  authority  be  held  by  us,  it 
will  stifle  the  study  of  the  Scriptures,  and  turn  our 
theology  into  a  slavish  tradition.  But  we  may  hope 
that  the  day  of  this  miscalled  catholicity  is  passing. 
We  may  hope  that  a  more  critical  knowledge  of  his- 
tory is  taking  the  place  of  that  which  has  been  gleaned 
from  the  Oxford  library  of  the  Fathers;  that  we  shall 


Christian  Faith  and  TJieology.  327 

study  afresh  the  thinkers  of  the  continental  Reforma- 
tion, with  the  mascuHne  minds  of  England  in  the  same 
great  period  ;  that  we  shall  look  for  the  principles  of 
our  Church  beyond  one  school  of  Anglo-Catholic 
divines  ;  that  the  communion  which  has  produced  a 
Hooker,  a  Cudworth,  a  Whichcote,  a  Butler,  is  to  have 
again  as  sound  a  learning,  and  to  be,  as  it  was  meant 
to  be,  the  leader  in  the  reconciliation  of  Christendom. 


JUDAISM   AND    CHRISTIANITY. 

I  SHALL  Speak  to-night,  brethren  and  friends,  of  the 

relation  of  Judaism  to  Christianity,     I  have  felt  that 

such  a  study  will  not   only,  at   this  day,  have  a  fresh 

interest  for  us  as  devout  scholars,  but  will  bear  in  the 

truest  way  on  the  work  of  your  Society.     There  has 

been,  I   may  well  say,  no  time  in   the  history  of  our 

faith  when  we  were  abler  than  now  to  open  with  all 

the  lights  of  older  and  newer  learning  this  wonderful 

book  of  the  Hebrew  Revelation.     It  is  in  this  domain 

that  the  keenest  questions  of  a  critical  age  have  been 

raised,   and   unbelief  has    sought    to   undermine   the 

whole  fabric.     We  open  now  the  book  of  revelation  as 

it  witnesses  its  divine  character.     And  let  me,  at  the 

outset,  state  the  argument  as  it  lies  before  us.     It  is  in 

Christianity,  then,  we  have  the  one  religion  whose  truth 

answers  the  wants  of  the  race,  and  which  truth  is  knit 

with  its  destiny.     Christ   is  the  centre  of  revelation. 

That  looks  forward  to  the  close,  and  backward  to  the 

opening  of  history.     That  revelation  is  given  us  in  the 

two  sacred  books  of  the  old  and  new  covenants.     They 

are   bound   together  in   one   volume  as  parts  of  one 

great  whole.     Yet  though  there  is  this  unity  in  their 

328 


Judaism  and  Christianity.  329 

common  relation  to  Jesus  Christ  and  his  perfect  truth, 
there  hes  between  them  this  one  grand  difference,  that 
the  first  is  but  a  preparatory  and  partial  religion.  It 
is  in  that  light  we  are  to  study  the  Hebrew  record. 
And  it  is  because  this  historic  character  has  been  too 
often  forgotten  that  it  has  been  misinterpreted.  Mod- 
ern criticism  has  passed  by  its  essential  truth,  has 
looked  only  on  its  passingfeatures,  its  outward  ritual, 
its  imperfect  morality,  and  pronounced  it  no  more 
than  one  of  the  religions  of  a  human  past.  And  it 
has  been  defended  as  often  with  the  same  superficial 
spirit,  as  if  this  preparatory  revelation  were  designed 
to  be  a  scientific  treatise  on  the  creation,  the  problem 
of  races,  and  all  the  facts  of  early  history.  Unbelief 
has  thus  too  often  found  in  our  theories  of  the  Bible 
the  seeming  apology  for  its  assaults.  It  is,  then,  to 
show  the  true  structure  and  purpose  of  that  Old  Tes- 
tament that  I  seek.  The  religion  of  Christ,  I  repeat, 
is  the  key  to  the  ancient  volume.  But  in  proportion 
as  a  Christian  science  has  explored  the  record  with 
a  fearless  honesty,  while  it  has  given  up  many  fancies 
of  past  interpreters,  the  supernatural  truth  has  stood 
forth  clearer  and  stronger.  As  we  pass  in  review  this 
Divine  history,  we  shall  see  it  linked  with  the  whole 
plan  of  God  in  the  training  of  the  race  ;  we  shall  see 
its  faith,  its  worship.  Its  social  movements  pointing  to 
the.fulness  of  times  ;  and  in  that  central  light  we  shall 
know  our  spiritual  heritage,  our  perfect  law  of  liberty. 


330  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

With  such  a  design,  we  open  the  Book  of  the  Old 
Covenant,  and  turn  at  once  to  the  fact  which  makes 
this  Hebrew  people  of  such  worth  to  us  as  the  wit- 
nesses of  Revelation.  It  is  a  history  that  stands  alone 
in  the  past.  A  wandering  herdsman  of  Semitic  race 
leads  his  tribe  from  the  Chaldean  plains  ;  and,  after  re- 
peated migrations,  and  a  long  serfdom  in  Egypt,  it  is 
found  a  full-grown  people  in  a  corner  of  the  world 
near  the  Mediterranean  sea.  It  passes  through  the 
earlier  form  of  a  commonwealth  into  a  brilliant  orient- 
al monarchy ;  and  at  last,  after  years  of  discord,  of 
captivity  under  the  changing  empires  of  East  and 
West,  after  the  later  hierarchy  from  the  day  of  Ezra, 
it  is  broken  in  pieces,  and  becomes  as  at  the  first,  a 
homeless  and  scattered  race. 

And  what  is  it  that  makes  this  people  of  Israel  so 
remarkable  ?  Was  it  a  leading  power  in  the  political 
or  social  history  of  that  Eastern  world  ?  No.  Egypt, 
Persia  tower  above  it  as  Caucasus  above  an  ant  hill. 
Was  it  a  teacher  of  mankind  in  ancient  learning  ?  No. 
India  had  its  speculative  wisdom,  Greece  its  native 
growth  in  letters  and  arts,  which  have  entered  as  ''  a 
possession  forever"  into  the  training  of  Europe.  But 
this  people  was  in  a  rude,  half  cultivated  state,  almost 
the  scorn  of  the  civilized  nations  with  whom  it  came 
in  contact ;  and  its  only  classic  literature,  contained 
in  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  can  hardly  give  it 
the   fame  of  an  intellectual  race.     The  time  is  past 


Judaism  and  Christ iajtity,  331 

when  our  fanciful  scholars  were  wont  to  derive  all  the 
treasures  of  natural  and  moral  science  from  the/r/;^- 
cipia  of  Moses.  What  is  the  secret  of  this  history  ? 
It  is,  that  in  the  keeping  of  this  obscure  Semitic 
family  there  was  the  knowledge  of  the  one  spiritual 
and  living  God.  Look  over  the  record  of  all  the  great 
nations  of  East  or  West ;  study  the  whole  develop- 
ment of  religious  thought  from  the  morning  twilight 
of  history  out  of  which  Abraham  emerges  with  his 
family,  and  it  is  the  witness  of  a  universal  Polytheism. 
The  "wisdom  of  the  Egyptians,"  led  only  to  the  wor- 
ship of  a  divine  power  enshrined  in  the  crocodile  and 
the  ibis  ;  the  races  of  Asia  had  every  shape  of  super- 
stition, from  the  loftier  adoration  of  sun  and  star  to 
the  grossest  rites  of  the  Syrian.  The  progress  of  nat- 
ure-religion was  a  slow  and  painful  one  from  the  first 
notion  of  fetish  worship,  the  coarse  Pantheism  that 
identified  God  with  tree,  river,  and  brute,  to  the  con- 
ception of  a  personal  mind  above  nature.  Yet  it  never 
reached  the  belief  of  the  Divine  Unity ;  and  still  less 
the  moral  idea  on  which  it  rests.  But  here  in  this 
nook  of  Palestine  we  have  the  highest  truth  which 
even  the  philosophic  thought  of  a  Plato  grasped  as  a 
vague  abstraction.  It  is  no  scientific  monotheism,  it 
is  the  religious  faith  of  a  people.  God  is  the  one, 
personal,  living  Jehovah.  They  claim  to  be  His 
chosen  in  virtue  of  this  belief;  separate  from  all 
others,  as  witnesses  and  keepers  of  this  one  revelation. 


332  Epochs  in  Church  History, 

We  pause  then,  here,  and  ask  what  shall  explain  the 
anomaly?  Whence  came  this  primeval  doctrine? 
Was  it,  as  some  of  the  early  neologists  maintained,  a 
mysterious  lore,  imparted  to  the  Hebrew  leader  by  the 
priesthood  of  Egypt  ?  I  have  observed  that  the  late  re- 
searches into  the  temples  of  Thebes  have  brought  to 
light  in  an  inscription  that  grand  saying  of  Moses,  "■  I 
Am  that  I  Am."  It  might  seem  at  first  sight  that  it  was 
borrowed.  But  the  fact  remains,  that  this  doctrine  of 
God  was  in  no  sense  whatever  the  religious  belief 
of  the  people  ;  it  was  a  Pantheistic  notion  of  the 
priest.  Perhaps  that  Egyptian  inscription  may  have 
been  the  memorial  of  some  older  traditions.  Never 
could  the  Hebrew  faith,  the  faith  incorporate  in  the 
whole  national  life,  have  been  of  such  a  source.  It 
must  have  been  an  original.  No  other  people  could 
have  furnished  it.  There  remains  the  favorite  theory 
of  our  modern  orientalists.  It  was,  we  are  told,  the 
stern  ethical  thought  of  the  Semitic  race,  which  led  to 
this  conception  of  the  unity  of  God,  while  the  Indo- 
Persian  fancy  revelled  in  its  dream  of  Polytheism. 
But,  unhappily  for  such  theorists,  these  Hebrews 
stand  alone  among  the  Semitic  people  as  monotheists  ; 
others  of  their  stock  held  the  grossest  Baal  worship  ; 
and  the  Arab,  the  cousin  of  the  Hebrew,  was  a  Pagan, 
until  Mohammed  borrowed  from  Jewish  books  his 
doctrine  of  the  Divine  unity.  To  complete  the  refu- 
tation, the  Persian,  who  comes  nearest  the  Hebrew  in 


Judaism  and  Christianity.  333 

his  ideas  of  a  supreme  God  and  his  hatred  of  idols, 
was  no  Semite.  Was  it  again,  the  discovery  of  a 
Moses  in  the  vision  of  his  own  solitary  thought  ?  It 
were  to  suppose  that  in  the  dawn  of  human  in- 
tellect he  could  reach  a  height  beyond  any  in  the 
ripest  age.  But  besides,  I  repeat,  it  is  no  doctrine  of 
a  sage  ;  it  is  the  faith  of  a  people.  None  could  ever 
have  imparted  such  a  truth,  unless  there  were  a  corre- 
sponding culture  of  the  whole  social  mind.  If  there 
were  still  wanting  evidence,  it  lies  here,  that  this  sub- 
lime revelation  of  the  Jehovah,  the  "- 1  Am  that  I  Am," 
was  from  the  first  to  last  above  the  religious  level  of 
the  people  themselves.  The  best  Hebraist  of  our 
time  has  shown  that  before  the  days  of  Abraham  they 
were  idolaters,  believing  in  the  gods  of  the  hills  and 
plains ;  and  all  along,  in  spite  of  the  truth  vouchsafed 
them,  they  were  lapsing  into  idolatry;  they  set  up  the 
calf  under  the  shadow  of  Horeb  ;  they  grieved  the 
Most  High  with  hill  altars  and  images ;  and  only  by 
the  sternest  discipline  was  their  faith  preserved.  One 
.only  key  can  unlock  this  riddle.  We  say  with  Muller, 
''  How  is  the  fact  to  be  explained,  that  the  three  great 
religions  of  the  world — Judaism,  Mohammedanism, 
Christianity — in  which  the  unity  of  the  Deity  forms 
the  keynote,  are  of  Semitic  origin?  We  are  content 
to  answer  that  it  was  by  a  special  Divine  revelation." 
And  here  I  must  not  omit  one  of  the  latest  theories 
of  a  brilliant  writer,  Mr.  Arnold,  which  has  startled 


334  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

the  sober  critics  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  his 
claim  that  the  Hebrew  believed  in  a  power  of  right- 
eousness, in  his  own  vague  words,  ''  that  makes  for 
righteousness,"  but  in  no  personal  God.  I  confess 
my  amazement  at  such  a  criticism.  To  describe  a 
half  cultured  people  like  that  of  the  Mosaic  age  as 
capable  of  a  high  abstract  moral  idea  like  this,  nay,  of 
building  a  national  religion  on  it ;  and  again,  to  pass 
over  the  passages  on  every  page  which  show  their  in- 
tense faith  in  a  living,  a  present  Jehovah  and  Judge, 
is  so  bold  a  novelty  of  opinion  that  one  can  hardly 
reply  save  by  asking  if  the  critic  were  in  sane  mind. 
Yet  there  is  one  grand  truth,  apart  from  this  ex- 
travagance, which  we  may  glean  from  his  views,  and 
which  gives  to  the  faith  of  this  Hebrew  people  in  God 
another  distinctive  feature  above  all  heathen  races. 
He  was  the  Power  of  Righteousness.  The  gods  of 
the  nations  from  Egypt  to  Greece  were  personifica- 
tions of  human  passions.  He  Avas  impersonal  in  this, 
that  He  stood  above  these  idols  of  the  fancy,  alone  in 
his  absolute,  unshared,  awful  purity. 

But  we  must  pass  to  the  further  view  of  this  He- 
brew polity.  It  has  not  only  such  a  faith,  but  we  find 
a  social  and  religious  structure  upbuilt  on  it.  The 
central  feature  is  a  code  of  moral  law.  We  are  told 
that  God  wrote  it ;  is  it  worthy  of  Him  ?  We  turn 
anew  to  the  record.  That  Decalogue  stands  alone, 
rising  like  Sinai  above  the  desert  of  ancient  history. 


Jtidaism  and  Christianity.  335 

It  teaches  the  being  of  the  one,  spiritual  God  ;  the 
strict  exclusion  of  idol  worship  ;  the  reverence  of  the 
holy  name  ;  the  day  of  social  rest ;  and  last,  as  seems 
probable,  among  the  religious  commandments  in  the 
first  table,  the  honor  of  parents.  It  teaches,  again, 
the  duties  of  man  to  man,  a  social  ethics,  not  in  scien- 
tific form,  but  embracing  all  the  great  relations  of  life. 
There  is  reared  on  this  code  the  whole  plan  of  a 
Divine  commonwealth.  At  first  glance  it  seems  in- 
deed to  contain  much  of  childish  admixture,  a  minute 
ceremonial  of  worship,  feast-day,  fast-day,  and  purify- 
ing. But  if  we  study  it  from  the  only  true,  the  his- 
toric point  of  view,  we  find  a  perfect  fitness  to  the 
development  of  this  people.  All  these  rites  have  their 
use ;  some  directly  religious,  some,  like  the  rules  of 
food,  of  washing,  given  for  a  sanitary  purpose.  Nor 
does  the  ritual  ever  hide  the  moral  framework.  Here 
is  the  first  and  purest  type  of  a  commonwealth  in 
history  ;  with  its  elective  council  of  judges  ;  its  priest- 
hood, strictly  unlike  any  ruling  caste  of  Oriental 
growth  ;  its  prophetic  order,  which,  as  has  been  strik- 
ingly shown,  held  the  element  of  republican  liberty  ; 
here  is  a  basis  of  social  distribution  of  land  ;  provision 
for  the  poor,  the  widow,  the  stranger  ;  here,  while  as 
with  all  early  peoples  slavery  is  permitted,  a  whole- 
some law  guards  it  against  perpetuity  or  abuse ;  and, 
everywhere,  the  spirit  of  a  large,  loving  humanity  re- 
deems the  barbarism  which  belongs  to  the  time.    Turn 


33^  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

to  the  national  annals  of  that  people,  and  you  see  im- 
perfections enough.  You  see  a  savage  ferocity  ;  you 
see  the  same  narrow  hatred  of  other  races  ;  you  see 
in  a  Samuel  a  heroism  linked  with  the  stern  manners 
of  an  early  age,  and  in  a  David  the  sad  stains  of 
Oriental  vices.  But  amidst  all  this  you  see  that  pure 
and  holy  law,  and  the  human  history  is  the  very  foil 
that  reveals  the  divine.  We  must  so  measure  it,  not 
by  an  ideal  or  a  Christian  standard  ;  but  as  the  history 
of  a  rude  people  s  growth,  and  in  this  light  primitive 
history  offers  no  comparison. 

We  pause  again  at  this  second  step,  and  ask  the 
origin  of  such  a  polity  ?  Was  it  in  the  sudden  work 
of  the  Hebrew  statesmen  in  the  wilderness  ?  As  well 
ask  if  one  hand  reared  the  pyramids.  It  were  to  sup- 
pose a  miracle  far  greater  than  all  which  neology  re- 
jects. Nor  is  it  reasonable  to  believe  it  borrowed, 
since  our  latest  study  proves  that  no  other  early 
nation  could  have  lent  it.  Here  or  there  a  feature,  as 
the  rite  of  circumcision,  may  point  to  a  common  origin 
with  Asiatic  nations  beyond  this  ;  but  the  Avhole 
structure  of  the  decalogue  and  the  national  polity  is 
original.  We  turn  again  to  the  modern  solution.  It 
is  held  to  be  the  later  romance  of  Hebrew  writers,  in 
the  age  when  they  wished  to  represent  to  Israel  an 
ideal  picture  of  the  past.  But  this  solution  cannot  ex- 
plain it.  Whatever  the  date  of  the  Pentateuch,  as  a 
written  compilation,  there  are  in  it  primitive  records 


Judaism  and  Christianity.  337 

so  marked  in  their  very  character  as  to  be  incapable 
of  after  invention.  The  Law  itself,  not  only  in  the 
simple  grandeur  of  its  truth,  but  even  in  the  form  of 
the  two  stone  tables  ;  the  early  council  of  the  seventy  ; 
the  subordination  of  the  priesthood,  so  unlike  the 
later  sacerdotal  state  ;  the  division  of  clean  and  un- 
clean meats  ;  the  Sabbath  and  the  great  sacrifices  ;  all 
these  are  traceable  to  the  primeval  time.  If  the  books 
containing  this  polity  were  lost  in  their  complete 
form,  we  could  construct  the  Mosaic  system  from 
these  colossal  remains,  as  a  Cuvier  constructed  the 
mammoth  from  a  few  bones.  But  more  than  this,  to 
think  it  the  ideal  romance  of  some  later  time  of  Ezra, 
is  to  suppose  that  after  the  Commonwealth  had  passed 
into  a  priestly  State,  such  a  spirit  of  Hebrew  freedom 
could  have  survived  to  describe  it,  or  such  a  picture 
of  the  forgotten  polity  could  have  been  accepted  as 
Divine,  and  incorporated  into  the  sacred  books.  No. 
A  sceptical  fancy  never  suggested  a  slenderer  theory. 
Nothing  save  the  fresh,  primeval  draught  of  the  God- 
taught  artist  could  have  been  its  original. 

With  such  a  study  we  may  gather  these  unmatched 
facts  together,  and  ask,  nay,  demand  their  explana- 
tion, on  any  ground  save  that  of  special  Revela- 
tion. It  matters  not  to  dispute  of  any  secondary 
questions.  It  matters  not  whether  the  cosmogony  of 
Moses  can  be  harmonized  with  the  results  of  science, 
or  whether  there  be  discrepancies  in  the  historic 
15 


33^  Epochs  171  Church  History. 

record.  They  do  not  touch  this  inquiry.  The  Bible 
is  not  given  to  be  a  treatise  of  astronomy,  or  geology, 
and  is  not,  therefore,  to  be  weighed  in  any  such  scales, 
by  either  its  critics  or  defenders ;  but  it  was  meant  to 
be  the  record  of  certain  supernatural  truths,  the  rev- 
elation of  the  one  Maker  and  Ruler ;  of  the  fact  of 
moral  evil,  the  covenant  of  redemption,  the  history  of 
Divine  Law.  I  plant  the  argument  there.  If  neology 
cannot  overturn  these  foundations  of  supernatural 
fact,  it  has  done  nothing,  and  older  or  newer  unbe- 
lief will  dash  the  surges  of  its  assault  against  them 
in  vain. 

And  now  from  this  central  point  we  may  open  at 
once  the  whole  character  of  that  history.  We  go 
back  to  the  night  when  Abraham  stands  in  the  soli- 
tary plain,  and  hears  the  Divine  voice,  "  My  covenant 
is  with  thee,  and  thou  shalt  be  father  of  many  na- 
tions." It  was  the  plan  of  God  to  redeem  the  world, 
and  therefore  He  made  this  little  people  witness  and 
keeper  of  the  truth  on  which  the  destiny  of  mankind- 
must  rest.  There  was  no  trivial  purpose  in  the  Provi- 
dence that  chose  an  obscure  corner  of  Judea,  apart 
from  the  movements  of  the  social  world.  We  see  its 
wisdom.  It  was  so  this  people  of  God  could  be  pre- 
served, as  in  some  sheltered  bay,  from  the  storms  that 
swept  over  the  vast  ocean  of  Oriental  life,  wave  on 
wave  of  a  material  civilization,  a  godless  empire,  each 
swallowed  by  its  successor.     We  need  not,  with  the 


Judaism  and  Christianity,  339 

narrow  theory  of  many  older  Christian  historians, 
look  on  the  heathen  world  as  having  no  place  in  the 
Divine  plan;  but  rather  recognize  in  each  of  the  great 
kingdoms  a  step  in  that  universal  development,  ripen- 
ing at  last  in  Christian  civilization.  India  and  Egypt 
gave  their  early  science  ;  Greece  its  immortal  ideas, 
its  art,  its  social  freedom  ;  Rome  its  fabric  of  law, 
which  passed  Into  the  life  of  modern  Europe.  But  we 
may  none  the  less  acknowledge  in  this  Hebrew  race 
the  special  deposit  of  that  revelation,  which  was  of 
more  moment  than  all  else  to  the  progress  of  the 
world.  In  such  a  view  the  narrower  features  of  this 
ancient  polity  have  their  true  vindication.  Such 
jealous  severance  from  other  nations  kept  alive  the 
social  and  domestic  virtues,  the  family  bond  of  the 
children  of  Israel.  Their  ritual,  Sabbath,  feast-day 
and  Temple,  were  a  grand  symbolic  history,  as  a 
pictorial  Bible  to  the  child,  v/herein  they  read  the 
truths  they  could  not  yet  grasp  in  their  spiritual 
meaning.  In  comparison  with  all  others,  this  Hebrew 
religion  was  most  spiritual.  It  was  not  yet  time  for 
the  Gospel.  It  was  the  age  of  law.  It  was  the  father 
chastening  his  children.  It  was  law,  the  school- 
master, or  in  the  truer  reading,  the  paidagogus, 
the  slave  leading  the  child  by  the  hand  to  Christ, 
training  the  wayward  intellect,  holding  up  the 
tables  of  moral  duty  to  the  popular  conscience, 
winning  by  outward    promises,   scourging  with  out- 


340  EpocJis  in  CJmrch  History. 

ward  penalties,  making  ready  for  the  coming  manhood 
of  the  world. 

We  thus  reach  the  crowning  feature  of  the  system. 
It  was  the  preparation  day  of  Israel  for  Christ.  If 
in  any  other  light  we  study  that  history,  it  is  an  utter 
enigma.  It  cannot  explain  itself.  That  so  unparal- 
leled a  development  should  take  place  in  a  corner  of 
our  earth,  merely  for  the  social  growth  of  an  insignifi- 
cant race,  is  a  harder  marvel  for  neology  than  all  Rev- 
elation claims.  Christianity  alone  solves  Judaism.  The 
Hebrew  religion,  in  the  perfect  image  of  Coleridge,  is 
a  transparency,  dark  and  meaningless  if  seen  from 
without,  but  place  in  it  the  lamp  of  Christianity,  and 
each  color,  each  line,  comes  out  in  harmony.  And 
thus  this  history  is  a  prophecy,  in  a  much  nobler 
sense  than  many  interpreters  make  it,  who  pry  pain- 
fully into  every  exact  Messianic  detail  of  the  record. 
We  should  study  it  by  the  large  law  of  historic  Reve- 
lation. That  Messianic  faith,  so  stamped  on  this 
people,  was  the  assurance  in  the  whole  national  mind 
of  a  destiny  beyond  themselves,  as  keepers  of  a  divine 
truth  ;  and  as  the  decay  of  commonwealth  and  king- 
dom brought  disappointment,  it  only  grew  stronger 
through  captivity  and  death,  till  it  became  the  fixed 
idea  of  the  nation.  The  Hebrews  lived  in  the  time 
to  come.  Like  their  language,  they  had  no  present 
tense,  only  past  and  future.  There  great  error  was, 
that  they  did  not  comprehend  their  history  as  a  future 


Judaism  and  Christianity.  341 

beyond  the  national  theocracy  ;  and  so,  at  last,  the 
sacerdotal  state  of  Ezra  and  the  Maccabees  became 
only  a  petrified  institution.  Yet  with  all  their  bigot- 
ry and  Pharisaic  tradition,  they  did  their  work,  and, 
when  the  new  conditions  of  a  ''  better  covenant " 
made  them  no  longer  need  it,  the  Hebrew  life  passed 
away.  But  the  structure  remained,  and  yet  remains, 
like  those  lower  courses  of  stone  which  the  traveller 
sees  in  the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  under  the  later  pile  of 
Christian  or  Saracen  architecture,  still  pointing  back 
to  the  day  of  a  Solomon  ;  it  stands  unmingled  with 
the  relics  of  ancient  idolatry,  unbroken  amidst  the 
changes  of  time  or  men. 

Such  is  Judaism.  As  we  thus  study  it,  we  recog- 
nize the  purpose  of  God.  Wonderful  people  !  Where, 
in  the  whole  history  of  the  past,  is  there  one  that  has 
so  shaped  the  course  of  civilization,  as  this  race  of 
Israel  ?  Where  in  the  universal  empires  that  have 
shaken  the  earth,  from  those  who  have  left  their  half 
deciphered  names  on  pyramid  and  temple  to  the 
Caesars,  one  so  lasting  as  this  ?  Where  in  the  treas- 
ures of  classic  philosophy  or  letters,  is  there  a  gift  like 
this  single  Book  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  ?  Wliere 
a  record  of  the  primeval  secrets  of  our  human  race 
like  the  Genesis?  Where  such  songs  of  praise  and 
penitence  as  in  that  Psalter,  which  Luther  called  "  a 
book  of  all  saints,"  whose  voices  still  rise  as  freshly 
as  at   the  beginning   under  the  roof  of  the  Christian 


342  Epochs  ill  Church  History. 

Temple  ?  Where  such  majestic  thought  as  in  Isaiah  ; 
such  tender  grief  and  love  as  in  Jeremy  ;  such  an  ut- 
terance of  faith,  of  spiritual  freedom,  as  in  that  line 
of  prophets  who  -cast  the  last  sunset  rays  along  the 
fading  horizon  of  Israel  ?  But  more  than  all.  He  who 
was  born  the  Christ,  the  God-man,  the  Saviour,  was  of 
the  lineage  of  David  ;  a  Jewish  mother,  blessed  among 
women,  nursed  Him  ;  Jewish  hearts  loved  Him ;  and 
while  the  temple  is  fallen,  the  glory  of  the  Son  of 
God  still  hallows  His  cradle  and  His  sepulchre. 

It  is,  then,  my  brethren,  no  needless  survey  o^  this 
subject  which  we  have  taken  ;  but  every  step  has  led 
us  to  the  right  view  of  the  connection  between  Juda- 
ism and  Christianity.  We  can  impartially  adjust  that 
question.  We  need  not  fear  the  results  of  a  true  criti- 
cism. It  will  only  remove  superficial  errors,  it  will 
teach  us  the  real  purpose  of  the  Hebrew  Revelation 
as  the  record  of  these  essential  truths ;  and  as  we 
more  and  more  study  it  in  the  spirit  which  I  have 
urged,  we  shall  learn  its  place  in  universal  history. 
Nor  is  it  only  a  question  of  the  past,  but  it  concerns 
our  view  of  Christianity  itself.  Without  it  the  re- 
ligion of  Jesus  Christ  becomes  only  a  chapter  of  hu- 
man development ;  with  it,  the  one  continuous  law 
of  revelation  is  made  clear.  The  historic  roots  of 
Christianity  are  there.  The  Hebrew  past  has  given 
us  what  cannot  fade  away.  Its  faith  in  the  one  living 
personal  God  is  ours  ;  its  decalogue  abides  in  its  moral 


Judaisin  and  Christia?iity.  343 

truth ;  its  ancient  institutions,  its  circumcision  and 
passover,  have  been  changed  into  our  own  by  that 
social  growth  which  brings  the  new  out  of  the  old. 
We  have  kept  what  is  essential,  is  Catholic,  and  put 
away  what  is  local,  national,  transient.  With  our 
purer  light,  our  spiritual  freedom,  we  still  look  back 
in  gratitude  to  that  Hebrew  dispensation ;  and  in 
these  latter  days,  when  faith  is  too  often  opinion,  and 
liberty  license,  the  Law  of  Israel  stands  above  us  to 
teach  the  fear  of  God. 

Yet  we  are  fully  to  understand  this  historic  fact  of 
Christianity,  and  not  mistake  it  for  any  traditional 
view.  If  we  have  learned  thus  to  read  this  history 
in  its  living  light,  it  gives  us  the  laws  of  a  true 
criticism.  We  need  not  be  perplexed  as  to  any 
secondary  questions.  If  the  Bible  were  given  for  a 
history  of  an  early  people,  we  do  not  read  it  for 
its  ideas  of  geology  or  astronomy,  but  we  read  it  for 
the  divine  truths,  which  make  it  the  preparation  of 
Christianity  ;  this  revelation  of  one  God,  this  holy 
Law,  this  history  of  a  spiritual  training  for  the  day  of 
a  perfect  Christ.  And  in  that  spirit  we  know  the  dif- 
ference between  the  Christian  mind,  which  interprets 
it,  and  every  form  of  tradition,  which  misreads  its 
meaning. 

The  Gospel  has  its  historic  roots  in  Judaism,  it  is 
no  Mosaism  continued,  no  mere  development  of  the 
Jewish  system.     It  is  no  ''  new  thing."     The  outward 


344  Epochs  in  Church  History, 

form  of  that  system,  its  ritual,  its  sacrifice,  its  minis^ 
try,  has  no  binding  authority  for  us.  Christ  fulfils  it 
in  abrogating  it.  Let  this  principle  be  well  defined. 
It  marks  the  border  line  between  the  Gospel  and  the 
law.  The  historic  growth  of  religion  from  Judaism 
is  of  worth  to  us,  as  witnessing  the  unity  of  Revela- 
tion, but  it  has  no  worth  as  the  basis  of  a  positive 
Christian  code.  Christ  must  interpret  Moses,  not 
Moses  Christ.  Yet,  strange  to  say,  though  eighteen 
centuries  have  rolled  away  since  Jesus  spoke  on  the 
Mount,  and  a  Paul  rebuked  the  circumcisers  to  their 
face,  there  is  still  among  us  the  leaven  of  the  Phari- 
sees. It  is  seen  in  our  interpretation  of  the  Script- 
ures. We  have  our  divines,  who,  with  the  same  Rab- 
binical minuteness  seek  an  occult  sense  under  each 
vowel-point,  hunt  for  mysteries  in  the  breastplate  of 
Aaron  and  the  utensils  of  the  Levites,  and  think  to 
honor  the  Holy  Word,  with  all  its  stately  chapters  of 
real  history,  by  turning  it  into  a  holy  book  of  riddles. 
But  there  is  a  worse  vice  than  this.  We  have  our 
ceremonial  doctors,  who  lay  down  as  Christian  law 
that  all,  even  to  the  rites  of  Judaism,  is  binding  unless 
specifically  annulled  ;  who  quote  the  rule  of  tithe  as 
authoritative,  identify  the  Sabbath  day  with  the  Lord's 
day  of  the  Resurrection,  think  a  Christian  worship 
modelled  on  the  temple  service  and  altar;  nay,  more, 
who,  in  defiance  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  quote 
high  priest,  priest  and  Levite,  as  the  type  of  our  three- 


Judaism  and  Christianity,  345 

fold  ministry;  who  change  the  ambassadors  of  Christ 
into  a  sacerdotal  tribe,  and  the  Holy  Communion  into 
a  perpetual  sacrifice.  This  is  our  Catholicity.  This 
is  our  advanced  Ritualism.  My  brethren,  if  this  be 
Christianity,  I  marvel  why  I  am  here  to  preach  for  the 
conversion  of  the  Jews.  Why  convert  them  ?  Better 
leave  them,  since  we  are  travelling  backward  so  fast, 
as  the  unchanged  ideal  which  may  always  quicken  our 
poor  aspirations.  If  this  be  Christianity,  then  shut 
the  book  of  the  New  Testament ;  it  is  a  needless 
oracle  ;  and  let  us  take  up  again  our  weary  march 
through  the  desert  until  we  sit  beneath  the  brows  of 
Sinai,  for  the  Messiah  is  not  come,  and  the  Redemp- 
tion is  a  dream.  No,  brethren;  this  is  the  Judaism 
that  fought  at  the  beginning  for  the  mastery  with  the 
Apostles,  and  must  be  conquered.  This  is  our  *'  con- 
cision." Let  us  hold  fast  the  better  inheritance.  Ours 
is  no  Aaronic  priesthood,  but  the  ministry  of  the  Son 
of  God  ;  ours  no  perpetual  altar  sacrifice,  but  a  com- 
munion with  Him  of  whom  that  was  the  vanishing 
shadow  ;  ours  no  local  presence,  but  a  worship  of 
spirit  and  truth  ;  ours  no  tradition  of  the  elders,  but 
the  authority  of  Christ,  who  speaks  by  His  living 
word  to  the  personal  faith  and  conscience  of  believers. 
But  if,  my  friends,  instead  of  this  poor,  half  Chris- 
tian view,  we  have  indeed  learned  these  living  and 
abiding  truths  which  I  have  set  before  you,  then  our 
faith  in  Revelation  will  be  a  clear  and  convincing  fact. 
15*  -— 


34^  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

And  in  that  faith  we  can  close  the  ancient  volume, 
with  the  assurance  that  it  is  for  us  a  precious  and  a 
living  truth.  It  is  no  longer  a  religion  of  the  past ;  it 
is  indeed  linked  forever  with  the  heart  and  life  of 
Christianity.  That  Hebrew  history  speaks  to  us  what 
cannot  fade  away.  Its  doctrine  of  the  living  God  is 
ours ;  its  decalogue  is  ours  in  all  its  moral  meaning, 
as  the  foundation  of  our  household  and  our  social 
purity  ;  its  ancient  institutions  tell  us  of  the  educa- 
tion which  made  the  world  ready  for  its  Saviour. 

In  that  view  I  may  well,  at  closing,  address  this 
society  for  the  conversion  of  the  Jews.  We  are,  as 
members  of  the  Universal  Church,  seeking  to  bring 
the  ancient  race  into  the  fellowship  of  their  own  Mes- 
siah. It  is  because  we  believe  in  Christianity  as  the 
kingdom  of  God,  no  local  religion,  no  mere  theocracy, 
but  one  that  breaks  down  all  partition  walls,  that  we 
can  labor  for  such  an  end.  I  do  not,  therefore,  ask 
whether  they  are  yet  to  have  a  restoration  to  their 
own  land,  or  what  is  to  be  the  precise  character  of 
their  future.  Although  I  give  due  respect  to  the 
learned,  who  have  so  interpreted  the  prophecies,  I 
cannot  find  any  proof  that  the  promise  is  more  than 
one,  conveyed  under  Hebrew  imagery,  of  that  Chris- 
tian redemption  which  shall  embrace  mankind  in  one 
great  family.  Nay,  to  me  the  whole  tenor  of  the  New 
Testament  points  to  a  unity  where  there  is  neither 
Jew  nor  Greek.     Nor  can  I  read  otherwise  the  analo- 


Judaism  and  Christianity.  347 

gles  of  history.  I  know  the  seeming  strength  of  the 
argument  from  the  unchanged  features,  the  strange 
identity  of  the  Jewish  race  even  through  ages  of  exile. 
But  it  is  a  more  indehble  law  that  no  nation  in  the 
record  of  mankind,  after  it  has  done  its  specific  work, 
has  ever  entered  anew  on  another  national  career. 
Their  moral  identity  is  gone.  The  whole  social  char- 
acter, the  habits  that  once  grew  in  the  soil  of  Pales- 
tine, are  uprooted.  The  religious  faith  itself  has  lost 
its  living  power,  and  has  become  little  more  than  a 
cold  monotheism.  Yet  here  I  confess  that  much  is 
theory.  He  who  makes  the  clouds  of  human  history 
his  chariot,  will  fulfil  his  plan.  But  instead  of  lessen- 
ing our  motive,  I  hold  that  the  view  I  have  given  in- 
spires us  with  a  nobler  hope.  We  have  our  labor  for 
the  sure  future  of  Christ's  own  kingdom  ;  and  with  it 
we  have  our  debt  to  Israel,  not  only  in  the  far  past, 
but  the  debt  we  owe  for  a  Christian  injustice.  Who 
does  not  look  back  with  shame  to  that  long  record  of 
wrong  done  to  the  guiltless  children  of  a  Caiaphas  and 
a  Judas,  to  the  ages  of  persecution  they  have  suffered 
at  the  hands  of  most  Catholic  kings,  and  of  the  Church 
which  forgot  the  last  legacy  of  forgiveness  her  Lord 
breathed  from  His  cross?  We  thank  God  that  day  is 
gone.  We  labor  to  win  their  minds  with  truth,  and 
reach  their  hearts  with  love.  It  may  be  such  a  task 
shall  be  a  slow  one.  It  is  not  strange  if  their  ancient 
pride  of  race,  ennobled  by  the  memories  of  suffering, 


348  Epochs  171   CJmrch  History. 

shall  long  keep  them  apart  from  us.  Yet  the  time 
shall  come,  blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  Israel!  when 
they  shall  see  that  their  religion  is  not  less,  but  greater 
in  the  fulfilment  of  Christianity  ;  that  the  little  throne 
of  David  and  the  local  Messiah  are  but  a  narrow  read- 
ing of  their  own  prophecies ;  that  to  be  the  heralds 
of  a  civilization  which  covers  the  world,  is  a  prouder 
fact  than  to  be  of  an  is.olated  and  barren  race ;  and 
then  shall  the  veil  at  last  drop  from  their  hearts  ;  and 
we  and  they  be  no  longer  aliens,  but  fellow-citizens 
with  the  saints  in  the  one  household  of  God. 


A    PERSONAL    RESURRECTION    AND 
MODERN    PHYSICAL   SCIENCE. 

I. 

It  is  one  of  the  undesigned  proofs  of  our  necessary 
belief  in  the  future  life,  that  even  unbelief  is  not  con- 
tent to  leave  the  question  unanswered,  but  must,  age 
after  age,  drop  its  sounding-line  into  the  same  waters. 
We  have  a  marked  example  of  it  in  the  theories  of  our 
latest  positive  school  on  this  subject.  It  rests  its  chief 
argument  against  the  Christian  faith  on  the  ground  of 
science ;  but  there  are  features  in  which  it  is  wholly 
unlike  the  older  scepticism.  We  have  been  wont  to 
look  on  the  denial  of  a  future  state  as  linked  with  the 
sensual  view  of  a  La  Mettrie  or  D'Holbach ;  yet  our 
modern  thinkers  appear  as  teachers  of  a  new  ethics, 
and  turn  away  with  pity  from  a  religion  that  needs 
the  hope  of  another  world  to  make  it  capable  of 
virtue.  In  this  claim  of  the  school,  I  cannot  doubt, 
we  may  find  the  charm  which  has  drawn  so  many  in 
our  day  into  an  acceptance  of  its  theories.  We  have 
in  Mr.  Mill  the  most  gifted  writer  who  has  guided 
English  thought  in  this  direction,  especially  in  the 
essays  published  after  his  death  as  his  last  legacy  to 

349 


350  EpocJis  in  Church  History. 

his  time.  In  one  of  these,  that  on  ImmortaHty,  he 
reviews  the  proofs  drawn  from  natural  or  revealed 
religion  ;  he  puts  aside  all  knowledge  of  a  life  beyond 
the  present,  yet,  with  a  moral  earnestness  that  lends 
warmth  to  even  his  icy  logic,  he  looks  forward  to  the 
age  when  our  faith  in  the  progress  of  mankind  shall 
replace  the  desire  of  a  personal  future.  There  is  a 
stoic  grandeur  in  Mill  that  takes  us  back  to  the  last 
days  of  Roman  thought.  He  has  torn  up  the  ideals 
of  the  past ;  his  universe  is  a  lonely  one,  without  a 
personal  God  or  a  hope  beyond  this  world,  yet- amidst 
the  ruins  he  clings  sternly  to  the  law  of  duty.  It  is 
this  idea  of  an  immortality  in  the  progress  of  the  race 
which  is  the  pivot  of  the  new  ethics.  We  find  it  re- 
peated, sometimes  in  the  severer  tone  of  science,  some- 
times in  the  more  sparkling  rhetoric  of  the  English 
school  of  Auguste  Comte  ;  and  many  of  our  readers 
have  met  with  the  latest  teaching  in  "  The  Soul  and 
the  Future  Life,"  by  Mr.  Harrison,  who  has  been  held 
worthy  of  a  symposium  in  the  Nineteenth  Ce7itury. 

None,  then,  can  doubt  that  such  a  subject  should 
call  out  the  earnest  thought  of  those  who  have  an  in- 
terest in  the  Christian  culture  of  our  time.  My  wish 
is,  in  this  paper,  to  study  the  truth  of  a  resurrection 
in  its  relations  with  modern  science.  Far  indeed  am 
I  from  any  fears  that  our  school  of  so-called  positive 
reasoners  can  ever  shake  a  faith  rooted  in  the  most 
sacred  convictions  of  men  ;  rather,  I  hold,  that  a  true 


Personal  Resurrection  and  Physical  Science.     351 

philosophy  will  only  end,  after  this  partial  eclipse  is 
over,  in  revealing  in  fuller  light  a  truth  on  which 
hangs  every  moral  idea  of  a  God,  or  human  life  or 
social  good.  But  it  is  my  earnest  belief  that  we  need 
a  more  thorough  adjustment  of  our  Christian  view 
with  the  verified  facts  of  science.  The  chief  cause  of 
the  scepticism  I  have  described  lies  in  the  mistake, 
on  either  hand,  which  has  confounded  certain  past 
theories  of  soul  and  body  with  the  truth  of  a  resurrec- 
tion. I  hold  that  there  is  not  only  entire  harmony 
between  the  Christian  belief  and  the  most  exact  in- 
duction, but  that  our  latest  science  has  opened  at  this 
hour  the  path  of  our  noblest  evidence. 

In  entering  on  this  question  I  shall  not  state  at 
lencfth  the  arg-ument  for  a  future  life,  as  it  will  be 
gathered,  step  by  step,  in  our  examination  of  the 
views  urged  by  the  modern  sceptic.  It  will  be  enough 
to  show  briefly  the  ground  on  which  I  rest  it,  and 
the  method  of  our  inquiry.  We  may  sum  the  vari- 
ous proofs  given  by  thinkers,  from  the  Phaidon  of 
Plato  to  our  Christian  divines,  in  three  classes  :  that 
from  the  nature  of  our  spiritual  powers,  from  the 
moral  condition  of  human  life,  and  from  the  Christian 
revelation.  But  it  is,  I  hold,  a  fatal  mistake  to  think 
tliat  such  a  truth  rests  for  its  ground  on  any  theoreti- 
cal or  scientific  reasoning.  In  the  deepest  sense,  it  is 
involved  in  the  primary  fact  of  our  moral  conscious- 
ness.    It  is  not  a  speculative  knowledge  that  an  ex- 


352  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

istence  hereafter  concerns  us,  but  as  a  practical  one 
And  thus,  as  Kant  rightly  claimed,  the  conscious  fact 
of  our  obligation  to  moral  duty  compels  every  man  to 
recognize  his  freedom,  his  choice  between  evil  and 
good,  and  with  it  the  law  of  retribution  which  de- 
mands a  life  to  come.  Our  scientific  reason  does  not, 
then,  create  this  conviction  ;  it  only  brings  out  in 
clearer  light  this  fact  of  our  moral  experience.  We 
learn  hgre  the  harmony  of  these  varied  arguments. 
All  are  the  exposition  of  one  truth  as  it  is  studied  in 
differing  paths.  The  analysis  of  our  mental  powers 
reveals  the  law  of  conscious  thought,  its  unity  and 
identity  amidst  the  changes  of  mind  or  body.  The 
facts  of  human  life  show  the  historic  evidence  to  be 
found  in  the  common  experience  of  the  race.  The 
argument  from  revelation,  while  it  could  not  prove 
immortality,  if  there  were  no  capacity  in  man  to  reach 
any  truth  on  such  a  subject,  opens  beyond  the  natural 
belief  the  whole  meaning  of  the  future  existence,  as  it 
is  connected  with  our  moral  condition,  the  life  of  holi- 
ness begun  here  in  the  redemption  of  Christ,  and  the 
problem  of  human  destiny.  But  I  will  not  enlarge  on 
these  ideas,  which  will  be  clear  as  we  proceed.  I  do 
not  propose  to  add  another  to  the  proofs  of  a  re- 
surrection, but  simply  to  meet  science  on  its  own 
ground. 

If,  then,  we  fairly  state  the  positions  of  the  best 
champions  of  the  school  who  deny  the  knowledge  of  a 


Personal  Rcsttrrcction  and  Physical  Science.     353 

future  life,  it  is  plainly  this :  Modern  science,  it  is 
claimed,  has  shown  the  organic  unity  of  all  the  phe- 
nomena of  thought,  feeling,  and  voluntary  action  with 
the  physical  structure,  so  that  it  is  impossible  to  know  ^ 
of  any  save  this  undivided  existence.  Since,  then,  this 
organism  is  decomposed  at  death,  there  can  be  no 
ground  for  any  scientific  knowledge  of  a  resurrection. 
Such  is  the  careful  statement  of  thinkers  like  Mill. 
There  are  among  the  bolder  advocates  of  the  material 
school  those  who  push  this  view  to  the  denial  of  the  pos- 
sibility of  a  future  life.  But  we  must  justly  understand 
the  difference  between  such  men  as  Moleschott  or  Haec- 
kel  and  the  wiser  exponents  of  the  creed.  It  is  not  the 
impossibility  of  a  resurrection,  Mill  affirms,  but  the  im- 
possibility of  evidence.  It  is  not  dogmatic  disbelief, 
but  scepticism.  We  are  not,  then,  concerned  here  with 
any  direct  answer  to  the  materialist,  since  our  whole 
reasoning  will  involve  the  refutation  of  his  grosser  er- 
ror, but  with  the  far  more  plausible  position  of  the 
sceptic.  Now  it  must  be  plain,  at  a  glance,  that  this 
claim  of  science  seeks  to  undermine  the  whole  ground 
of  evidence  which  we  have  before  stated.  If  there  be 
in  our  very  structure  an  impossibility  of  reaching  be- 
yond the  fact  of  organic  life  and  decay,  all  reasoning 
is  empty  theory.  Consciousness  cannot  pass  its  fixed 
limits  of  present  experience.  Moral  probabilities  are 
no  more  than  an  unreal  craving  of  our  poor  human 
imagination.     The  miracle  of  Christianity  cannot  con- 


354  Epochs  in   Church  History, 

vincethe  mind  which  has  resolved  beforehand  that  the 
life  beyond  nature  is  a  dream.  And  it  must,  there- 
fore, be  as  plain  that  our  only  way  to  meet  the  argu- 
ment of  modern  scepticism  is  to  examine  the  scientific 
ground  on  which  it  claims  to  rest.  If  we  can  show 
that  this  has  no  validity,  but  rather  that  science  itself 
gives  us,  in  our  organic  unity,  the  proof  of  a  law  of 
permanence  beyond  the  present,  we  can  then  see  the 
moral  truth  of  Christianity,  and  the  emptiness  of  the 
ethics  built  on  an  assumption.  Such  is  the  method 
of  our  reasoning.  I  state  it  here,  that  the  study  I 
undertake  may  not  seem  a  needless  one.  To  learn 
what  science  can  teach  us  as  to  the  life  hereaftel",  we 
must  first  learn  what  it  teaches  as  to  the  character  of 
our  mental  and  moral  and  physical  life  here.  It  is  to 
this  first  step  in  our  inductive  logic  I  now  directly  turn. 
We  accept,  then,  as  our  starting-point,  the  twofold 
fact  of  our  conscious  organic  existence.  It  is  admit- 
ted by  all  that  we  have  on  the  one  hand  certain  phe- 
nomena of  thought,  feeling,  and  volition,  which  are 
directly  known  to  us  in  the  sphere  of  our  mental  ob- 
servation. We  recognize  thought  in  the  act  of  think- 
ing, and  perception  in  the  act  of  seeing,  and  memory 
in  the  act  of  recollection.  Consciousness  gives  its  own 
evidence  of  these  phenomena.  Yet  as  we  study  the 
law  of  this  mental  action,  Ave  know  that  we  cannot 
sever  our  knovv^ledge  of  these  inward  facts  from  the 
organic  conditions   of  our  life.     Every  one  who  has 


Personal  Resurrection  and  Physical  Science.     355 

become  acquainted  with  the  results  of  modern  science 
must  grant  that  the  light  it  has  thrown  on  this 
connection  of  the  mind  with  the  physical  organism 
has  enlarged  our  methods  of  inquiry.  It  has  been 
clearly  ascertained  that  we  have  a  key  to  many  subtle 
marvels  of  thought,  memory,  and  will  in  the  structure 
of  the  nervous  system,  with  its  branching  centres 
leading  to  the  cerebral  mass,  its  responsive  afferents 
and  efferents.  We  find  a  rhythmical  law,  by  which 
each  sensation  is  passed  onward  through  a  series  of 
complex  changes,  so  that  each  perception,  each  act  of 
reasoning,  has  its  correspondence  with  the  functions 
of  our  nervous  activity.  Nor  is  it  less  wonderful  what 
light  has  been  thrown  on  the  abnormal  phenomena  of 
the  mind.  Instances  of  suspended  intellectual  power, 
insanity,  hypnotism,  have  gone  far  to  show  that  each 
faculty  is  affected  by  the  health  or  disease  of  a  specif- 
ic organ.  But  we  can  only  glance  at  the  host  of  facts 
gathered  in  all  treatises  from  Bernard  to  Carpenter  and 
Spencer  ;  and  we  are  merely  anxious  to  recognize  in  the 
fullest  sense  their  bearing  on  the  problem  before  us. 

What,  then,  is  the  conclusion  we  draw  from  these 
discoveries?  It  is,  that  this  connection  between  the 
mental  and  physical  powers  reveals  a  law  of  unity,  so 
constant  in  its  operation  that  science  has  the  right  to 
affirm  that  to  this  extent  it  understands  the  relation 
of  mind  to  body.  It  knows  phenomena  and  force  ;  a 
force  manifesting  itself  as  thought,  feeling,  and  volun- 


35^  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

tary  action  under  these  conditions  of  its  organization. 
And  what  further  knowledge  does  science  reach  ? 
Does  our  study  of  the  physical  phenomena  tell  us  any- 
thing of  the  nature  of  this  organic  connection  ?  None 
whatever.  Can  it  explain  in  what  way  the  transition 
is  made  from  the  ultimate  activity  of  the  nerve-centre 
to  the  act  of  intellectual  consciousness  ?  No.  We 
may  take  any  of  the  cases  in  which  physiology  has 
explored  this  law.  Take  an  act  of  perception,  as,  e.g., 
that  of  the  face  of  a  friend.  We  find  three  successive 
steps  in  the  process  ;  the  impression  received  by  the 
sensitive  membrane,  the  transmission  of  the  stimulus 
through  the  nerve-fibres,  and  last,  the  conscious  per- 
ception in  the  brain.  Yet,  while  we  can  measure  the 
time  of  transmission,  and  even  the  interval  between 
the  first  impression  and  the  result,  the  nexus  by  which 
the  physical  movement  ends  at  last  in  a  mental  knowl- 
edge is  as  unknown  as  before.  Or  we  may  analyze 
another  class  of  voluntary  phenomena.  Suppose,  with 
this  perception  of  the  face  of  my  friend,  there  rises  in 
me  a  wish  to  enter  his  house.  My  act  will  again  pass 
through  three  analogous  reflex  processes  ;  the  act  of 
volition  taking  place  in  the  brain  ;  the  passage  of  the 
motor  impulse  through  the  spinal  cord  and  nerves  to 
their  terminations  ;  and  the  contraction  of  the  muscular 
fibres.  Now  in  this  whole  circuit,  from  centre  to  cen- 
tre, till  the  message  reaches  the  brain,  is  received  and 
returned  through  this  human  telegraph,  the  one  mys- 


Personal  Resurrection  and  Physical  Science,     357 

tery  is  the  unseen  operator,  yet  the  one  essential  fact 
in  the  case  is  that  whicli  is  done  by  this  unseen  agency. 
Science  cannot  give  even  a  hint.  The  transformation 
from  the  physical  to  the  mental  is  the  secret.  Why, 
then,  is  this  ?  Because  our  instruments  are  not  keen 
enough  to  detect  it  ?  Not  at  all.  Because  no  instru- 
ments of  physical  science  can  ever  do  so.  Our  con- 
clusion cannot  be  better  stated  than  by  Mr.  Mill,  al- 
though we  have  yet  to  see  how  it  can  square  with  his 
own  later  reasoning  :  ''  Science  gives  no  proof  that 
organization  can  produce  thought  or  feeling.  The 
utmost  it  knows  is,  that  all  thought  is  connected  with 
bodily  organs."  Although  there  is  unity  of  action, 
the  two  classes  of  phenomena  are  so  distinct  that  no 
analysis  of  the  brain  structure  or  functions  can  give  us 
any  knowledge  of  the  essence  of  thought.  Refine  the 
nerve-fibres  to  their  vanishing-point,  suppose  what 
molecular  change  you  will  in  the  infinitesimal  cell,  no 
physiologist  can  cross  the  line  to  what  has  no  extension, 
form,  or  divisibility.  All  we  can  say  is,  that  there  is  co- 
existence, co-ordination  in  time,  co-working  in  the  re- 
sult. Science  ends  with  phenomena  and  a  force,  in  the 
last  analysis  known  to  be  of  intelligence,  feeling,  and 
will. 

We  can  now  apply  this  induction  to  the  old  and 
endless  riddle,  of  whkh  our  positive  sages  think  they 
have  found  the  key.  I  beg  the  reader  not  to  fear  that 
I  am  about  to  weary  him  with  a   discussion  of  the 


358  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

rival  theories  of  dualism,  idealism,  and  materialism. 
My  task  is  simply  to  show  how  the  inductive  logic 
disposes  of  them  all  with  the  same  impartiality.  I 
grant  readily,  then,  the  claim  of  science  that  the 
notion  of  two  separate  substances,  spiritual  and  mate- 
rial, is  no  longer  tenable.  The  theory  seems  to  me  far 
older  than  Aquinas,  to  whom  Mr.  Bain  assigns  it,  and 
to  be  clearly  enunciated  by  Augustin,  in  following  out 
the  Platonic  view  of  ideas  as  entities.  The  philosophy 
of  Descartes,  again,  although  a  grand  step  in  psychol- 
ogy, led  to  its  severance  from  the  study  of  the 
organic  unity  of  mental  and  physical  action.  Science, 
then,  dismisses  the  theory  of  two  separate  substances, 
simply  because  it  does  not  explain  at  all  the  twofold 
phenomena  of  life,  but  only  substitutes  an  abstraction 
for  the  fact.  But  the  same  reason  holds  good  against 
all  other  purely  metaphysical  assumptions.  Idealism, 
whether  with  Berkeley  or  Fichte,  attempts  to  find 
unity  only  by  denying  one  of  the  elements  in  the 
problem,  and  thus  adds  nothing  to  our  real  knowledge. 
But  it  should  be  equally  clear  that  the  theory  of 
materialism  is  merely  the  other  pole  of  the  same  fal- 
lacy. If  the  mental  phenomena  be,  as  we  have  found, 
unresolved  in  the  last  analysis  by  any  study  of  cell  or 
fibre,  then  the  notion  of  "a  physical  basis,"  or  by 
whatever  .name  we  reclothe  the  old  figment  of  material 
substance,  is  precisely  the  same  metaphysical  assump- 
tion which  science  rejects. 


Personal  Restirrcction  and  PJiysical  Science.     359 

But  here  I  shall  ask  leave  to  pass  a  little  into  de- 
tail. Our  positive  sages  will  accept  all  we  may  grant 
as  to  the  other  abstractions,  but  they  have  a  strange 
blindness  in  regard  of  the  beam  in  their  own  eyes.  I 
am  concerned,  therefore,  to  urge  this  last  point,  as  it 
bears  on  the  views  so  often  and  so  loudly  uttered  by 
the  champions  of  the  *' physical  basis"  to-day.  We 
cannot  fmd  a  better  exponent  than  Dr.  Maudsley, 
who,  in  his  well-known  work,  joins  so  rare  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  nervous  system  with  a  scorn  of  all  out- 
side his  dissecting-room.  I  need  not,  after  the  keen 
dissection  of  him  in  a  late  article  of  a  Review,  do 
more  than  state  the  central  error.  Our  mental  and 
moral  activities  are  the  product  of  our  physical  struct- 
ure. *' The  highest  functions,"  in  his  language,  ''of 
the  nervous  system,  those  to  which  the  hemispherical 
ganglia  minister,  are  those  of  intelligence,  emotion, 
and  will."  Nothing  can  be  more  undisguised  than 
this  statement.  What  is  a  function  ?  It  is  an  activity 
inherent  in  the  structure  of  the  organ.  Circulation  is 
a  function  of  the  vascular  system  ;  and  the  blood 
which  circulates  is  a  physical  thing  like  the  pump 
which  sends  it  along.  Thought,  then,  is  in  this  view 
as  material  as  the  nerve-centre.  If  not  so,  the  word 
function  has  no  meaning.  But  we  have  now  to  ask, 
Where  is  the  proof?  Does  science  give  the  least  trace 
of  identity,  or  kindred,  or  resemblance  between  the 
hemispherical  ganglia  and  the  conscious  fact  of  percep- 


360  Epochs  in  Church  History, 

tion  ?  No.  We  may  as  well  say  that  memory  is  a 
secretion  of  the  gray  or  the  white  matter ;  that  sorrow 
is  of  the  same  specific  gravity  or  salt  taste  as  the 
liquid  of  the  lachrymal  gland  ;  that  joy  is  of  the  sub- 
stance of  the  spinal  marrow  ;  or  that  there  is  a  rela- 
tionship between  the  ganglionic  knots  and  the  work- 
ing of  the  logical  faculty  in  untying  the  knots  of  an 
argument.  To  talk  of  thought  or  feeling  as  a  function 
of  the  nerve-centres  is  simply  the  denial  of  the  very 
principle  of  inductive  knowledge  which  such  natural- 
ists boasts.  It  assumes  a  theory  of  substance  more 
impertinent  than  that  *'  incorporeal  essence  which  sci- 
ence inherited  from  theology."  Yet  I  need  not  push 
the  criticism,  but  leave  this  philosopher  to  refute  him- 
self. We  turn  a  little  further,  and  we  read  "  that  we 
know  not  what  mind  is,  but  we  are  bound  to  study 
the  laws  of  its  functions."  Thought  is  first  a  function, 
and  then  the  nervous  action  is  the  function  of  thought. 
Mind  is  resolvable  into  ganglionic  structure,  and  then 
mind  is  an  unknown  quantity.  It  is  surely  the  kindest 
counsel  one  can  give  to  such  sages,  to  say  that  when 
they  venture  beyond  the  dissecting-room  they  had 
best  take  a  few  lessons  in  the  science  of  ideas  which 
they  scorn.  Nothing,  indeed,  can  be  worthier  of  a 
laugh  than  the  same  style  of  scientific  wisdom,  so 
constantly  appearing  In  our  modern  essays  on  physi- 
ology. Not  long  ago,  I  read  a  lecture  on  the  nerve- 
system  by  a  physician,  at  the  head  of  his  profession,  in 


Personal  Resurrection  and  Physical  Science,     361 

which  he  told  his  hearers  that  thought  was  "  a  secre- 
tion of  the  brain."  One  is  reminded  of  the  Dutch 
sage,  who  held  the  seat  of  the  conscience  to  be  in  the 
stomach,  and  the  poetic  faculty  in  the  intestines.  And 
why  not,  since  we  know,  according  to  Emerson,  that 
our  theology,  whether  Calvinistic  or  other,  depends 
largely  on  the  biliary  duct  ?  Why  not  create  a  more 
perfect  system  of  divinity  by  large  doses  of  calomel, 
or  a  new  Shakespeare  by  the  skilful  use  of  phos- 
phates? But  I  should  not  stay  so  long  on  this,  w^ere 
it  not  that  clearer  intellects,  when  trained  in  the  sensa- 
tional school,  fall  into  the  same  error.  No  better 
answer  could  be  given  to  this  materialistic  theory  than 
in  the  words  of  Mr.  Mill,  already  cited :  ''  Science 
gives  no  proof  that  organization  can  produce  thought 
or  feeling."  Yet  Mr.  Mill  quotes  with  seeming  ap- 
proval the  fancy  of  a  speaker  in  Plato's  Phaidon, 
who  asks  if  the  soul  may  not  be  to  the  body  as  the 
music  produced  by  the  strings  of  the  lyre.  It  is 
strange  that  such  a  thinker  could  suppose  the  unity  of 
mind  and  body  solved  by  a  wave  of  sound,  a  phenom- 
enon as  purely  physical  as  the  instrument  that  sends 
it  forth. 

With  this  criticism  I  pass  to  the  far  truer  statement 
of  the  leaders  of  the  modern  school.  We  have  in  Mr. 
Spencer,  and,  longo  intervallo^  in  Mr.  Bain,  a  very 
notable     contribution     to    psychology.      They    have 

analyzed  with  much  ingenuity  the  dual  activities  of 
16 


362  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

our  organic  life,  and  find  that  at  no  point  in  the  proc- 
ess can  the  mind  and  body  be  separated.  We  must 
accept  this  as  the  ''  ultimate  experience."  We  have 
in  each  case  of  perception,  memory,  or  reasoning,  the 
''subjective  side"  of  the  same  fact  which  we  know  on 
its  ''  objective  side  "  as  sensation  and  nerve-force  ;  and 
we  can  state  the  equation  either  "  in  terms  of  these  " 
or  *'  terms  of  those."  Yet  when  we  come  at  length  to 
the  definition  of  this  ''  ultimate  experience,"  we  have 
two  very  unlike  answers,  to  each  of  which  I  ask  special 
attention.  One  is  the  conclusion  of  Bain.  He  tells 
us  that  ''one  substance,  with  two  sets  of  properties, 
physical  and  mental,  a  double-faced  unity,  would  ap- 
pear to  comply  with  all  the  exigencies  of  the  case." 
But  we  are  forced  to  say  that  this  seems  like  a  solu- 
tion of  the  difficulty  by  a  greater  one.  In  what  way 
are  we  helped,  by  calling  it  a  double-faced  unity  or 
substance,  to  know  the  real  nature  of  the  facts?  We 
may  as  well  say  that  mind  and  body  are  tied  together 
like  the  Siamese  twins.  Will  he  explain  the  superi- 
ority of  his  one  substance,  which  joins  "two  distinct 
entities,"  two  "  distinct  and  wholly  unsolvable  natures," 
to  the  old  notion  of  two  substances?  Are  not  entities 
substances?  Are  two  of  them  one  substance?  Mr. 
Bain  has  told  us  that  we  are  to  deal  with  this  "as 
with  the  language  of  the  Athanasian  Creed,  neither 
confounding  the  persons  nor  dividing  the  substance." 
It  is,  of  course,  highly  gratifying  to  a  devout  mind  to 


Personal  Resurrection  and  Physical  Scieitce.     363 

see  this  modern  sage  going  back  to  the  most  metaphys- 
ical creeds  as  his  standard ;  but  even  the  Athanasian 
Creed  refuses  to  help  him.  His  two  entities  are  sub- 
stances, not  persons,  and  his  substance  is  divided.  In- 
deed, like  most  double-faced  things,  this  unity  is  no 
unity  at  all.  We  turn  with  more  satisfaction  to  Mr. 
Spencer.  In  closing  his  chapter  on  the  '^Substance  of 
Mind,"  he  reaches  a  very  striking  result.  It  is  this, 
that  as  the  twofold  phenomena  of  mind  and  body  must 
be  resolved  into  one  force,  this  force  may  be  either 
spiritual  or  physical ;  yet  if  he  must  *'  choose  between 
translating  mental  phenomena  into  physical,  or  physi- 
cal into  mental,  the  latter  would  seem  the  more  ac- 
ceptable of  the  two."  It  a  is  true  step  beyond  "  the 
double-faced  unity."  Mr.  Spencer,  it  is  true,  retreats 
anew  into  his  skepsis,  and  says  that  '*  substance  of 
mind  is  the  x  of  our  equation."  But  I  beg  leave  at 
this  point  to  cross-examine  the  witness.  Why  does  he 
grant  at  all  that,  if  he  must  choose,  he  will  accept  the 
mental  solution  of  the  facts?  It  is  plainly  because  the 
force,  which  in  the  last  analysis  remains  to  us,  is  the 
intellectual  one.  ''  If  units  of  external  force  are  re- 
garded as  absolutely  unknown  and  unknowable,  then 
to  translate  units  of  feeling  into  them  is  to  translate 
the  known  into  the  unknown,  which  is  absurd."  ''  It 
is  impossible  to  interpret  inner  existence  in  terms  of 
outer  existence."  To  translate  this  idea  out  of  the 
scientific  dialect  of  our  author,  compared  with  which 


364  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

the  quiddities  of  the  schools  are  simple,  all  our  knowl- 
edge of  the  physical  facts  leads  us  at  last  to  conscious 
thought  and  feeling,  and  therefore  to  think  these  a 
product  of  any  other  save  a  thinking  and  feeling 
power  is  absurd.  This  is  admirable.  But  if  it  be  so, 
then  there  is  no  longer  room  for  any  balancing  of 
probabilities.  We  must  choose,  and  we  can  only 
choose  this  result,  that  there  is  one  substance  or  one 
force,  call  it  what  we  will,  which  is  the  ultimate  solu- 
tion of  the  phenomena,  and  that  is  mind. 

Here,  then,  we  reach  the  meeting-point,  where  our 
study  passes  into  the  character  of  the  mind  itself.  All 
along  we  have  used  the  word  science  in  the  sense  of 
physical  induction,  without  quarrelling  with  its  narrow- 
ness, until  the  fallacy  should  be  laid  bare  by  the  scien- 
tist himself.  We  are  now  to  complete  the  knowledge 
to  which  natural  science  only  leads.  What  do  we 
mean  by  this  mental  or  spiritual  force?  Let  me  take 
any  fact  which  will  be  readily  allowed  by  all.  I  am 
conscious  of  reading  at  this  moment  a  sentence  in  Mr. 
Spencer's  *'  Psychology,"  and  I  clearly  remember  six 
months  ago  having  read  the  same  passage.  My  act 
of  memory  binds  the  two  states  of  thought  in  one  con- 
tinuous whole,  so  that  I  recall  each  thread  of  the 
twisted  argument,  each  doubt  and  slow  conviction  of 
my  own  mind.  Such  a  process  reveals  a  law  of  unity 
in  myself,  as  the  person  in  whom  these  separate  states 
cohere.     This  law  of  personal  identity  is  surely   as 


Personal  Rcsttrrcction  and  PJiysical  Science.     365 

much  within  my  scientific  knowledge  as  the  tracing 
several  sensations  to  their  nerve-centres.  Nay,  more ; 
it  is  the  ground  of  all  other  knowledge.  If  there  be 
no  such  mental  identity,  there  can  be  no  certainty  as 
to  the  physical  induction,  since  I  cannot  know  myself 
to  be  the  same  man  who,  six  months  ago,  travelled 
with  much  patience  through  Mr.  Spencer's  book.  But 
this  opens  at  once  the  secret  of  the  mental  and  moral 
force.  It  reveals  a  personal,  continuous  life,  which 
abides  amidst  all  natural  changes,  whether  of  outward 
or  inward  existence.  If  it  be  said  that  this  mental 
identity  is  no  more  a  fact  than  physical  identity,  and 
is  subject  to  the  same  conditions  of  organic  structure 
or  decay,  I  reply,  that  I  am  assuming  no  abstract  or 
separate  spirit,  but  simply  tracing  this  undeniable 
orcfanic  law.  This  continuous  life  we  know  in  our 
mental  consciousness.  It  is  well  expressed  in  the 
words  of  Mr.  Mill :  "  Feeling  and  thought  are  reality 
— the  only  reality."  We  shall  ask  hereafter  how  far 
his  language  is  consistent  with  his  denial  of  the  reality 
of  a  future  life;  but  it  is  enough  here  to  say  that  he 
speaks  in  no  figurative  sense,  but  with  scientific  strict- 
ness. Without  such  reality,  thought  and  feeling  are 
a  whirl  of  impersonal  accidents.  Without  it  life  is  a 
dream,  and  we  as  little  concerned  with  it  as  with  the 
fantastic  shapes  chasing  each  other  athwart  the  camera 
obscura  to  vanish  in  a  moment.  It  is  here,  in  the  as- 
surance of  this  mental  fact,  we  have  our  knowledge  of 


366  Epochs  in  Church  History, 

the  outer  world,  our  unceasing  growth  from  infancy 
to  age  in  the  study  of  nature  or  of  man  ;  it  is  here  yet 
more  we  have  the  capacity  of  moral  growth,  and  pass 
in  the  slow  experience  of  the  years  to  that  fixed  state 
of  thought,  feeling,  will,  which  we  call  character. 
Such,  I  conclude,  is  the  true  result  of  our  inquiry.  In 
this  light  I  accept  gladly  the  method  of  modern 
science.  If  it  have  taught  us  to  give  up  our  older 
metaphysical  abstraction  of  a  twofold  substance,  of  a 
separate  immaterial  entity  which  cannot  explain  the 
organic  facts,  our  loss  is  a  greater  gain,  for  we  have 
risen  by  its  induction  to  a  more  spiritual  as  well  as 
real  truth.  If  the  phenomena  of  sensation  be  thus 
traceable  to  the  more  subtle  nerve-centres ;  if  the  life 
of  the  nerve-centres  gain  such  "  subjective  validity  " 
that  the  physical  ends  in  the  mental  act ;  if,  in  a  word, 
we  find  in  the  structure  itself  this  abiding  unity  of 
thought,  feeling,  will,  then  our  inductive  science  is 
one  with  the  knowledge  of  a  personal,  intelligent,  and 
moral  being. 

We  can  now  pass,  with  a  clear  understanding,  to 
the  question  of  the  future  life.  It  will  be  seen,  I 
trust,  that  each  step  of  the  analysis  has  been  needful 
to  meet  the  problem,  and  bears  at  once  on  the  con- 
clusion. What  proof  is  there,  from  this  present  or- 
ganization of  our  physical  and  mental  powers,  that 
there  will  be  a  resurrection?  My  answer  is,  that  the 
fact  of  such  a  law  of  personal  being,  one  and  abiding 


Personal  Resurrection  and  Physical  Science,     '^6y 

amidst  all  changes,  gives  us  the  most  reasonable  ground 
of  belief  in  its  continuance  hereafter.  Let  me  at  the 
outset  guard  this  position  against  any  just  objections 
which  may  be  urged  in  regard  to  some  of  our  older 
theories.  It  is,  I  fully  grant,  impossible  to  reason,  as 
has  been  so  often  done  since  Plato,  from  the  inherent 
immortality  of  the  soul  as  a  pure,  immaterial  essence. 
That  argument  indeed,  was  almost  wholly  given  up  by 
the  early  Christian  Fathers,  although  they  were  of  the 
Platonic  school,  and  it  was  held  wiser  only  to  affirm  that 
our  existence  must  depend  on  the  will  of  God.  In- 
deed, that  view  may  fairly  involve  our  belief  in  pre- 
existence,  as  there  is  no  more  reason  to  infer  an  eter- 
nity after  than  before  the  present,  from  the  nature  of 
the  soul.  Science  cannot  know  this  separate,  disem- 
bodied entity,  which  it  truly  calls  an  abstraction.  I 
doubt  not  that  every  mind  feels  far  more  than  all  the 
subtleties  of  his  logic  the  moral  argument  of  Socrates 
when  he  says  to  his  judges :  *'  This  one  truth,  O 
judges,  ye  ought  clearly  to  know,  that  for  a  good  man 
there  is  no  evil  whether  he  live  or  die,  nor  is  his  wel- 
fare uncared  for  by  the  gods."  Nor  can  we  find,  again, 
any  resting-place  in  such  theories  as  that  of  Bishop 
Butler  drawn  from  the  indivisible  character  of  ulti- 
mate atoms.  It  was  probable,  as  he  held,  that  the 
human  being  may  be  in  its  essential  structure  a  unit, 
which  can  survive  decay.  Science  justly  rejects  every 
such  theory  as  outside  its  sphere  ;  and  the  Christianity 


368  Epochs  ill  Church  History. 

which  leans  on  it  must  part  company  with  real  knowl- 
edge. The  argument  of  Butler  has  indeed  the  noblest 
force,  as  we  shall  yet  see,  Avhen  he  reasons  from  the 
nature  of  human  life- as  the  sphere  of  moral  growth. 
But  the  scientific  knowledge  of  his  time,  although  his 
guess  was  enough  to  meet  the  objector,  had  not  the 
clear  method  of  our  own.  It  is  curious  to  see,  in  his 
notion  of  the  eye  as  only  a  field-glass,  or  the  leg  as  a 
walking-staff,  his  mechanical  view  of  organic  life.  •  . 
We  dismiss,  then,  all  such  theories  beforehand,  and 
meet  directly  the  claim  of  the  modern  thinker.  It 
cannot  be  more  thoroughly  stated  than  by  Mr.  Mill, 
and  we  shall  take  him  as  its  best  exponent.  He  holds, 
that  as  our  real  knowledge  goes  no  further  than  the  co- 
existence of  the  physical  organism  with  the  mental  and 
moral  powers,  we  have  no  ground  whatever  for  the 
conclusion  that  these  powers  survive  the  decay  of  the 
body.  Let  us  consider  just  what  this  claim  means. 
It  is  not  that  a  continuance  of  our  being,  under  new 
organic  conditions,  is  impossible.  Our  author,  let  me 
repeat,  is  not  to  be  classed  among  materialists  like 
Strauss  or  Haeckel.  No  one  has  more  thoroughly 
answered  them.  It  is,  as  he  fairly  reasons,  wholly  un- 
scientific to  go  beyond  the  results  of  our  induction. 
There  is  no  necessity  that  our  existence  should  end 
with  the  body ;  we  cannot  deny  or  disprove  the  possi- 
bility of  a  future.  Such  a  belief  cannot  be  dismissed 
among  exploded  superstitions,  as  in  the  case  of  witch- 


Personal  Resurrection  and  Physical  Science,    369 

craft.  Witchcraft  is  a  belief  which  has  been  tested 
within  our  experience.  But  the  future  Hfe  is  wholly 
beyond  experience.  Nay,  he  admits  that  such  a  faith 
may  be  allowed  us  as  a  noble  aspiration,  but  it  has 
no  validity  whatever  as  scientific  knowledge.  We 
come,  then,  at  once  to  this  clear  statement,  and  test  it 
by  his  own  method.  Why  is  it,  by  the  admission  of 
Mill,  that  the  question  leaves  us  any  possibility  at  all? 
If  it  should  be  proven  by  inductive  science  that  the 
mental  and  moral  powers  are,  as  the  materialist  claims, 
only  functions  of  the  physical  organs,  no  such  possi- 
bility could  for  a  moment  be  granted.  It  is  not 
merely  our  ignorance  of  the  future,  but  the  real  knowl- 
edge we  have  of  somewhat  in  the  character  of  this 
organic  life  here  that  forces  us  to  admit  the  idea  of  a 
possible  continuance.  Our  inductive  science  has  shown 
that  the  ultimate  law  of  the  organism  is  that  of  a  force 
manifest  in  thought,  feeling,  volition  ;  that  while  knit 
with  the  bodily  structure  it  has  a  personal  unity,  a 
connected  growth  from  infancy  to  age  in  knowledge 
and  moral  character. 

Now,  if  this  be  so,  why  should  not  science  grant, 
beyond  a  mere  possibility,  the  most  reasonable  ground 
of  our  belief  in  a  future  ?  If  the  fact  of  this  con- 
nection with  the  body  have  been  shown  to  involve  no 
necessity  of  decay,  the  whole  weight  of  the  scientific 
objection  is  lifted  off,  and  the  very  character  of  this 
organic  life  makes  it  yet  more  a  positive  argument 


370  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

for  a  resurrection.  The  law  of  our  existence  is  not 
affected  by  the  flux  and  waste  of  years.  "  Thought 
and  feeling,"  in  the  words  of  Mill,  "  are  reality — the 
only  reality  ;"  and  this  reality  implies  that  the  power 
which  creates  them  cannot  be  bounded  by  the  span 
of  our  little  threescore  and  ten.  We  may  say,  in  the 
most  literal  sense,  that  we  pass  through  the  same  pro- 
cess of  resurrection  constantly  ;  that  we  are  always 
dying  in  the  flesh,  always  rising  anew  by  virtue 
of  this  organic  identity  ;  and  what  we  call  death  is 
but  another  step  in  the  same  unceasing  growth.  This 
law  of  our  existence,  therefore,  is  not  broken,  but 
only  passes  forward  to  its  completeness.  It  demands 
a  future  as  essential  to  it ;  and  if  not  so,  then  thought 
and  feeling  are  not  reality  any  more  than  the  waste 
particles  of  the  skin.  But  it  is  answered,  that  science 
can  only  verify  our  actual  experiences,  and  this  in  its 
nature  is  not,  and  cannot  be,  a  truth  of  experience. 
Our  whole  argument  ought  to  show  the  fallacy  of 
this  answer.  I  admit,  of  course,  that  experience  can- 
not prove  what  is  beyond  experience.  But  it  is  the 
task  of  science  to  rise  from  the  facts  to  the  laws  that 
explain  them.  The  system  of  Copernicus  is  an  hy- 
pothesis ;  and  there  are  eccentric  minds  which  doubt 
it  now,  as  Bacon  did  ;  yet  it  is  no  guess,  no  unscien- 
tific belief,  for  it  ''  solves  phenomena."  Belief  in  a 
future  state  solves  the  phenomena,  and  without  it 
they  are  incapable  of  a  just    solution.     To  say  that 


Personal  Resurrection  and  Physical  Science,    371 

such  a  truth  is  not  a  demonstration,  as  in  mathe- 
matics, or  a  verification,  as  in  a  visible  fact  of  chem- 
istry or  physiology,  is  not  to  destroy  its  reasonable 
proof.  It  is  to  beg  the  whole  question.  And  yet 
this  is  the  very  fallacy  which  runs  throughout  the 
reasoning  of  Mr.  Mill  on  this  subject,  when  he  tells  us 
that  it  is  a  sentiment,  or  a  hope  without  any  scientific 
basis.  Nay,  more  ;  it  is  his  own  admission  that  such 
a  belief  may  be  ^^philosophically  defensible."  We 
ask  no  more  than  this.  It  is  indeed  the  most  cheer- 
ing thought  that,  after  all,  the  dreary  denial  of  such  a 
mind  rested  on  a  narrow  definition,  and  did  not 
quench  the  real  power  of  the  truth.  But  we  claim 
the  full  meaning  of  his  admission.  It  is  no  belief  to 
be  dismissed  to  the  shadowy  realm  of  the  subjective 
feeling.  If  it  be  what  we  have  proved  it,  it  is  not 
only  philosophically  defensible,  but  it  rests  on  a 
ground  so  firm  that  science  must  acknowledge  its 
agreement  with  the  physical,  mental,  and  moral  law 
of  our  being. 

II. 

We  have  thus  far,  in  our  study  of  this  great  ques- 
tion, examined  the  scientific  ground  on  which  modern 
scepticism  rests  its  denial  ;  and  it  has  led  us  to  the 
conviction  that  science  itself  gives  us  the  most  rea- 
sonable proof  of  our  continued  existence.  But  here 
we  are  to  pass  to  a  more  positive  view.     I  claim  that 


372  Epochs  in  CJiiircJi  History. 

we  have  in  this  result  a  new  and  most  satisfying  argu- 
ment for  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  resurrection. 
My  essay  will  not  allow  me  to  offer  more  than  the 
leading  idea  of  so  large  a  subject ;  yet  enough  if  I 
make  it  clear.  We  have,  then,  in  reaching  the  law  of 
our  organic  unity  amidst  the  changes  of  the  body, 
met  the  central  error  out  of  which  all  doubt  has 
sprung.  It  is  because  the  future  existence  is  regarded 
as  a  state  without  any  analogies  with  the  present, 
that  death  is  held  an  annihilation  of  life.  Here,  then, 
we  enter  by  the  path  of  science  itself  on  the  ground 
of  revelation.  It  has  been,  from  the  first,  the  teach- 
ing of  the  Christian  Church,  as  embodied  in  its  oldest 
creed,  that  there  is  to  be  a  personal  resurrection  of 
soul  and  body.  But  this  truth,  although  most  rea- 
sonable and  m.ost  spiritual  in  its  Biblical  meaning,  has 
been  too  often  identified  with  the  notion  of  a  material 
body,  compacted  of  the  same  fleshy  atoms.  There  is 
a  vast  distance  from  St.  Paul  to  the  gross  view  of 
Tertullian,  and  of  many  of  the  traditional  expositors 
of  later  days.  Even  a  sober  divine  like  Bishop  Pear- 
son could  only  answer  the  scientific  doubter  by  claim- 
ing that  Omnipotence  can  gather  the  scattered  parts, 
so  that  "  each  bone  shall  know  its  old  neighbor- 
bone."  It  was  not  strange  that  such  an  arbitrary 
marvel  should  seem  absurd  to  the  chemist  who  knew 
that  "  the  noble  dust  of  an  Alexander  "  might  have 
played  its  part  in  the  bodies  of  a  thousand  meaner 


Personal  Restirrection  and  Physical  Science.    373 

men  ;  nor  can  we  doubt  that  hence  there  has  grown 
by  degrees  into  the  popular  theology  the  vague  no- 
tion of  a  disembodied  state,  a  world  of  spirits  without 
any  real  relation  to  this. 

But  if  we  rightly  understand  this  sacred  truth  of 
the  resurrection,  it  teaches  us  that  very  view  of  the 
future  which  has  its  confirmation  in  science.  This 
undivided  personality  of  the  man,  in  its  organic  unity 
of  soul  and  body,  shall  be  the  same  in  the  future 
state.  We  can  thus  appreciate  the  masterly  argu- 
ment of  the  Apostle  in  his  epistle  to  the  Corinthians. 
Every  seed  shall  have  ''  his  own  body ;  "  yet  the  body 
"  that  shall  be  "  is  not  the  natural  body,  for  ''  flesh 
and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God." 
Each  shall  be  the  same  in  all  that  constitutes  the  or- 
ganic personality,  and  this  unchanging  life  will  put  on 
its  nobler  form  under  the  conditions  of  its  nobler 
state.  In  such  a  view  there  is  nothing  gross,  but  the 
very  reality  to  satisfy  the  mind  or  heart.  If  we  so 
look  on  the  human  form,  as  a  Christian  science  can 
do ;  if  we  so  recognize  this  mental  and  spiritual  law 
of  its  organic  unity,  it  becomes  in  its  truest  sense  the 
incarnation  of  the  inward  man.  It  is  no  mechanism  ; 
it  is  our  personal  self.  Who,  indeed,  has  studied  the 
mystery,  shrouded  in  our  daily  life,  by  which  our  af- 
fections are  linked  with  the  faces  and  forms  we  love ; 
who  that  has  watched  the  transfiguration  passing  over 
the  man,  until  the  beauty  of  the  soul  has  refined  the 


374  Epochs  ill  Church  History. 

plainest  features,  and  vice,  again,  has  furrowed  over 
the  fairest  the  Hnes  of  lust  or  hate,  who,  I  ask,  has  not 
felt  the  meaning  of  that  scripture :  ''  Know  ye  not 
that  your  body  is  the  temple  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 
*'  If  any  man  destroy  the  temple  of  God,  him  will  God 
destroy  "  ?  Or  who  that  knows  the  power  of  unselfish 
love,  of  joy,  of  hope,  of  holy  activity,  lodged  in  these 
bodies,  even  in  a  world  of  decay,  cannot  conceive 
somewhat  of  their  capacities  in  a  sphere  of  riper 
growth  ?  Yet  I  will  not  follow  out  such  thoughts, 
although  far  from  unreasonable,  beyond  my  line  of 
argument.  Much  may  be  within  the  range  of  philo- 
sophic opinion  which  is  not  of  necessity  truth.  It  is 
enough  that  our  belief  has  its  harmony  with  the  best 
results  of  science.  A  Christian  faith  is  no  baseless 
sentiment.  It  completes  the  fact,  graven  on  the 
moral  consciousness  of  man,  which  all  our  scepticism 
cannot  destroy ;  it  gives  us  no  theories  of  an  un- 
known world,  but  joins  present  and  future  as  one  liv- 
ing reality ;  it  answers,  with  a  divine  revelation,  to 
the  necessary  craving  of  the  human  soul  for  a  truth 
which  shall  make  this  life  the  sphere  of  our  growth, 
our  hope,  our  labor  for  the  life  eternal. 

Here,  then,  we  can  enter  on  the  next  division  of 
our  subject — the  moral  argument  for  the  doctrine  of 
the  resurrection.  The  religion  of  Christ  declares,  that 
in  this  truth  of  a  future  life  we  have  the  only  solution 


Personal  Resurrection  and  Phy steal  Seienee.    375 

of  our  present  existence,  and  the  noblest  motive  of 
holiness.  Modern  scepticism  declares  such  a  faith  an 
illusion,  and  the  morality  it  offers  a  selfish  one.  I 
trust  it  will  now  be  plain  that  it  was  necessary,  first 
of  all,  to  take  up  the  scientific  ground.  It  is  with 
this  the  new  ethics  must  stand  or  fall.  In  this  light 
we  can  now  examine  the  strange  mistakes  which  all 
such  thinkers  have  made  in  regard  to  the  character  of 
Christianity,  and  the  doctrine  they  would  offer  us  as 
the  latest  discovery  of  moral  science. 

Let  us,  then,  briefly  state  the  argument,  as  it  has 
been  urged  by  Christian  writers.  I  have  said,  at  the 
outset,  that  the  conscience  of  mankind  reaches  the 
conviction  of  a  future  life  in  the  growth  of  its  real  ex- 
perience, and  all  our  philosophy  can  do  is  to  present 
this  conviction  of  lettered  or  unlettered  minds  in 
more  explicit  reasoning.  Our  scientific  argument  was 
nothing  more  than  the  analysis  of  the  fact  of  our  per- 
sonal identity  given  in  every  consciousness.  Our 
moral  argument  is  only  its  application  to  human  life. 
It  rests,  in  a  word,  on  the  knowledge  of  the  imperfec- 
tion of  our  present  state,  and  our  capacities  of  a  good 
which  the  present  cannot  supply.  We  may  state  it, 
on  its  spiritual  side,  as  the  experience  of  our  struggle 
with  sin,  our  sense  of  retribution,  and  our  need  of 
that  perfect  holiness  in  which  is  the  happiness  of  the 
soul.  Pascal  has  expressed  it  in  one  sentence  :  ^'  The 
present  is  never  our  end ;  the  future  only  Is  our  ob- 


37^  Epochs  in  Church  History, 

ject.  Thus  we  never  live,  but  hope  to  Hve ;  and 
always  aiming  to  be  happy,  we  can  never  be,  unless 
we  seek  another  beatitude  than  we  can  enjoy  here." 
We  may  state  it,  on  its  intellectual  side,  in  that 
strong  saying  of  Goethe's  :  '*  The  eternal  existence  of 
my  soul  is  proved  from  my  need  of  activity.  If  I 
work  incessantly  till  death,  nature  is  pledged  to  give 
me  another  form  of  being,  when  the  present  can  no 
longer  sustain  my  action."  We  may  state  it  on  its 
social  side,  as  a  conviction  that  there  must  be  a  state 
where  the  riddles  of  this  world,  of  imm.ature  death,  of 
sickness,  misery,  inequality,  and,  most  of  all,  the  par- 
tial victory  of  goodness,  shall  be  solved  by  a  right- 
eous God.  None  can  deny  the  fact  of  such  moral 
ideas;  and  so  necessary,  so  universal  are  they,  that 
they  must  point  to  a  reality. 

Now  it  is  to  this  whole  array  of  proof  that  our 
modern  school  replies  in  one  sweeping  denial.  It 
does  not  deny  the  sentiments,  but  it  claims  that,  so 
far  from  being  proof  of  any  reality,  they  are  the 
growth  of  natural  superstition,  and  the  source  of  self- 
ish action.  The  craving  for  another  sphere  of  men- 
tal or  moral  existence  gives  us  no  more  positive  evi- 
dence than  the  desire  of  the  old  man  for  the  happi- 
ness of  his  childhood  can  give  him  the  hope  of  its 
renewal.  The  Christian  paradise  is  a  myth,  like  that 
of  the  fountain  of  youth,  which  led  Ponce  de  Leon 
into  the  savannahs  of  Florida  to  find  only  death.     All 


Personal  Rcsuri'cction  and  Physical  Science.    377 

the  facts  of  disease,  of  suffering,  of  unpunished 
wrong,  are  no  evidence  of  a  future  ;  but  rather,  in 
the  view  of  Mr.  Mill,  they  show  the  non-existence  of 
a  God,  or  the  existence  of  a  weak  or  an  evil  power. 
Here,  then,  we  have  the  whole  question  before  us,  on 
which  the  moral  argument  depends  ;  and  here  we  can 
meet  it.  It  is  granted  that,  if  there  be  no  ground  for 
a  reasonable  belief  that  our  personal  existence  sur- 
vives this  present  organic  condition,  all  such  moral 
convictions  are  an  illusion.  We  must  accept  the 
strange  riddle  of  our  destiny,  and  make  the  best  of  it. 
But  if,  as  we  have  seen,  science  confirms  such  a  belief, 
then  to  doubt  the  reality  of  such  convictions  is  the 
insanity  of  the  man  v\^ho  doubts  his  own  identity.  It 
is  to  suppose  a  nature  without  a  purpose,  a  growth 
without  a  ripening,  a  life  compelled  to  crave  knowl- 
edge and  goodness,  yet  in  which  each  step  is  a 
curse. 

We  might,  then,  close  the  question  of  morality 
here ;  but  there  are  so  many  points  of  interest  in  this 
new  ethics,  that  we  shall  take  up  in  brief  detail  the 
more  important  of  them.  It  is  the  claim  of  our  mod- 
ern thinkers  that  the  belief  in  a  future  life  is  not  uni- 
versal We  are  told  that  our  late  researches  into 
primitive  history  have  exhumed  many  savage  tribes 
without  a  trace  of  such  a  faith,  and  that  where  it 
exists  it  has  sprung  from  the  notion  of  ghosts,  sug- 
gested   by  the    phenomena    of  dreams.        But    it    is 


3/8  Epochs  in  Church  History. 

strange  that  such  reasoners  cannot  see  that  the  very- 
fact  admitted  by  writers  like  Tylor  and  Lubbock  is 
itself  the  disproof  of  their  assertion.  The  belief  in 
ghosts  is  universal  ;  and  that  belief,  whatever  its 
crudeness  is  the  confession  of  the  deep-rooted  con- 
viction that  in  some  way  the  dead  yet  exist.  Could 
it  be  shown  that  a  few  tribes  have  never  had  even  this 
faith,  it  will  no  more  disprove  the  general  fact  than 
the  blind  fishes  of  the  Mammoth  Cave  disprove  the 
eyesight  of  the  vast  tribes  in  the  rivers  or  the  seas. 
We  do  not  expect  of  the  savage  a  defined  or  reason- 
able idea  of  the  future  life  ;  we  expect  simply  this 
childlike  conception  of  it ;  and  to  ignore  its  meaning 
is  to  show  ourselves  incapable  of  understanding  the 
character  of  any  early  religion.  There  is  to  my  mind 
a  nobler  reason  in  the  African  who  worships  the 
shade  of  his  ancestors  than  in  him  who,  because  he 
has  unlearned  his  faith  in  ghosts,  has  concluded  that 
there  is  no  reality  beyond  the  senses. 

Nor  is  this  less  clear  in  those  historic  examples 
which  Mill  and  others  have  cited  of  the  Hebrew  and 
the  Buddhist  religions.  The  absence  of  any  belief  in 
immortality,  so  often  asserted  since  the  treatise  of  the 
learned  but  inaccurate  Warburton,  is  not  allowed  by 
the  best  Hebrew  scholars.  It  was  not  strange  that,  in 
the  youth  of  the  Jewish  people,  the  living  faith  in-  a 
divine  Ruler  and  a  present  law  of  retribution  should 
be  the  more  prominent   feature  of  their  religion.     A 


Personal  Resurrection  and  Physical  Science.     379 

fully  developed  conviction  of  this  future  existence  is 
always  the  fruit  of  experience  with  a  nation,  as  it  is 
with  the  growth  of  the  child  into  the  more  thought- 
ful man.  The  Sheol,  or  underworld,  to  the  Israehte 
of  the  heroic  age^  as  to  the  Greek  of  the  Homeric 
poems,  was  a  region  peopled  with  shadowy  forms; 
yet  there  is  quite  enough  in  the  Pentateuch  and  early  • 
history,  as  in  the  story  of  Enoch's  translation,  the 
raising  of  the  spirit  of  Sam.uel,  the  ascension  of 
Elijah,  to  prove  that  from  the  first  such  a  belief  ex- 
isted. "  History,"  says  Mill,  ''  does  not  bear  out  the 
opinion  that  mankind  cannot  do  perfectly  well  with- 
out a  heaven."  History  does  bear  it  out  with  em- 
phasis. It  v/as  this  early  faith  which  passed  with  the 
long,  sad  experience  of  the  nation  into  a  conviction 
so  rooted  that  nothing  could  destroy  it.  Sadduceeism 
Avas  at  most  a  sceptical  sect ;  but  the  lasting  power  of 
the  Pharisee  over  the  people  lay  in  this,  that  he  kept 
alive  such  positive  truths.  But  Mr.  Mill  is  yet  more 
unfortunate  in  citing  Buddhism.  Apart  from  the 
quite  uncertain  claim  that  the  Nirvana  means  annihi- 
lation, it  is  clear  that  the  religion  could  not  stay  with 
the  silence  of  its  founder,  but  has  created  a  mythol- 
ogy as  fanciful  as  that  of  the  Brahman,  and  even 
incorporated  the  doctrine  of  transmigration.  We  may 
deplore  the  superstition,  but  it  proves  the  fact. 

We  thus  pass  to  the  more  ethical  objections.     It  is 
urged  alike  against  the  heathen  or  Christian  belief  that 


380  Epochs  ill  C/mrch  History. 

it  has  been  the  parent  of  immoral  and  cruel  fancies. 
We  m.ight  answer,  in  the  spirit  of  Bacon  against 
atheism :  ''  I  had  rather  believe  all  the  fables  of  the 
Hindu  than  that  this  bodily  frame  is  without  a  soul." 
Yet  I  prefer  to  say,  that  while  we  admit  all  the  gross - 
ness  mingled  with  the  ideas  of  the  future,  it  is  surely 
the  wisdom  of  the  philosopher  to  allow  both  the  in- 
tense power  of  the  faith  which  created  the  mythology, 
and  the  witness  it  gives  to  the  moral  judgment  of 
mankind.  There  is  a  kind  of  "  wild  justice  "  in  each 
system.  Each  is  a  popular  Theodicsea.  When  I  read 
the  funeral  ritual  of  the  Egyptians  in  Bunsen's  vol- 
umes, or  the  dark  fancies  pervading  Hindu  poetry  of 
souls  doomed  to  wander  through  ages  of  purifying, 
they  speak  of  the  eternal  truth  graven  on  the  con- 
science, of  the  self-avenging  power  of  sin.  Or  when 
I  study  the  theology  of  the  Latin  age  in  the  poem  of 
Dante,  all  the  stern  or  grotesque  imagery  cannot  hide 
the  ideal  justice  which  metes  out  pain  to  wicked  king 
or  pontiff,  and  the  immortal  love  that  rewards  the 
good.  If  I  mourn  over  the  strange  religion  which 
could  believe  in  a  ''^  liiubiis  infantiun,''  I  find  that  as 
often  the  moral  truth  corrects  the  dogma ;  Virgil  is 
the  messenger  of  Beatrice,  and  Cato,  with  other 
crowned  worthies,  can  enjoy  a  place  of  honor  in  even 
the  Roman  Catholic  underworld.  A  purer  Christian 
knowledge  will  by  degrees  rid  us  of  the  gross  notions 
that  disfigure  the  truth,  but   it  can  never  uproot  this 


Personal  Resurrection  and  Physical  Science.     381 

conviction,  unless  it  can  make    evil   good   and  good 
evil. 

But  it  is  urged  again  that  the  Christian  doctrine  of 
the  future  has  led  to  a  vast  amount  of  selfish  religion. 
It  is  said  that  one  of  the  chief  hindrances  of  social 
progress  has  been  found  in  the  Church,  which  taught 
men  to  submit  to  every  wrong  of  slavery  or  caste,  and 
flattered  them  in  their  trial  with  the  unreal  hope  of  a 
heaven  to  come.  This  is  a  favorite  charge  with  our 
Socialists  of  the  unchristian  type.  None  need  deny 
that  there  is  a  partial  truth  in  it  when  it  is  urged 
against  the  code  of  monastic  morals;  nor  do  I  doubt 
that  it  is  a  weighty  charge  against  the  like  spirit  in 
many  later  forms,  the  unmanly  quietism  that  forgets 
the  duty  of  the  Christian  as  man  and  citizen.  But 
when  it  is  urged  against  the  belief  in  a  future  life,  as 
it  is  taught  by  the  Gospel  or  witnessed  in  its  real  re- 
sults, I  cannot  withhold  a  smile  at  its  absurdity. 
Whatever  else  may  be  said  of  such  a  faith,  it  is  folly 
to  say  that  the  heroism,  the  active  benevolence,  the 
humanity  have  been  the  marked  virtues  of  the  unbe- 
liever. Let  the  sceptic  beware  of  such  dangerous 
comparisons.  But  a  far  more  serious  charge  is  brought 
against  the  Christian  doctrine  when  it  is  called  a  self- 
ish one.  I  can  only  feel  a  sad  regret  that  a  critic 
usually  so  fair  as  Mr.  Mill  should  have  so  misread  the 
New  Testament,  as  to  speak  of  the  "  Christ  of  the 
Gospels  as  holding  out  the  direct   promise  of  reward 


382  Epochs  in  C/ncrch  History. 

as  a  primary  Inducement  to  beneficence."  Had  it 
been  simply  his  aim  to  unmask  the  selfish  theories 
which  have  perverted  the  Gospel,  I  should  grant  them 
worthy  of  his  rebuke.  One  might  ask,  indeed,  if  by 
the  philosophy  of  his  own  school  self-love  be  the  orig- 
inal motive  of  action,  why  '^  the  desire  of  everlasting 
happiness,"  as  Paley  held,  should  be  called  immoral? 
But  I  do  not  allow  that  the  religion  of  the  Gospel 
accepts  that  ethics,  whether  In  the  fashion  of  Bentham 
or  of  a  base  theology.  The  Christianity  which  has 
preached  the  dread  of  hell  instead  of  the  fear  of  sin, 
or  the  payment  of  a  heaven  to  come  instead  of  the 
life  of  holiness,  has  been  the  root  of  the  worst  false- 
hoods in  theory  and  in  practice.  It  has  led  to  all  ar- 
bitrary devices  of  salvation,  to  self-deluded  hope,  and 
to  spiritual  sloth.  But  it  is  strange  ignorance  that 
such  moralists  should  not  know  that  the  unselfish 
doctrine  they  profess  to  teach  is  that  of  the  Gospel 
they  reject.  It  tells  that  the  happiness  we  seek  is 
begun  here  in  the  holiness  of  the  heart,  and  that  the 
punishment  of  sin  is  in  Its  own  self-retribution.  We 
learn  it  not  only  from  Him  who  taught  us  to  lose  our 
life,  If  we  would  find  it,  in  unselfish  duty,  but  in  all 
from  a  Paul  to  a  Xavier,  a  Fenclon,  a  Leighton,  who 
have  breathed  his  spirit.  This  is  the  essence  of 
Christian  morality.  It  docs  not  take  away  all  motive 
of  action  here  by  denying  that  there  is  any  reality 
beyond  the  present,  but  it  offers  us  the  highest  and 


Personal  Resurrection  and  Physical  Sciejice,     383 

purest  of  motives  in  the  undying   nature  of  holinesn 
itself. 

And  here,  then,  we  reach  the  point  where  we  can 
unmask  the  strange  falsehood  of  this  morality.  What 
is  it  that  offers  instead  of  the  faith  it  rejects  ?  What 
is  this  ne\v  ethics  of  our  time  ?  I  do  not  wish  to  un- 
dervalue its  aim.  It  is  a  far  nobler  code  than  that  of 
the  sensual  school,  from  the  Greek  Epicurus  to  Hel- 
vetius.  I  honor  the  virtue  of  Mill,  as  I  do  the  Stoic 
grandeur  of  Marcus  Antoninus,  when  linked  with  the 
same  religion  of  despair  ;  but  I  none  the  less  maintain 
that  the  position  of  such  thinkers  is  as  untrue  to  the 
moral  facts  of  life  as  to  those  of  science.  What  is 
this  morality  which  shall  replace  a  selfish  Christian- 
ity ?  We  will  look  at  the  clear  statement  of  Mr.  Mill. 
He  believed  that  as  mankind  grows  in  culture,  the 
selfish  desire  of  personal  immortality  Vv'ill  pass  into  a 
love  of  the  race,  and  this  he  thinks  "  a  better  religion 
than  any  ordinarily  called  by  that  title.  '  We  have 
here  the  favorite  doctrine  of  the  school.  I  will  not 
pause  to  ask  how  this  pure  "altruism  "  is  to  come  out 
of  the  original  self-love,  Vv'hich  by  the  principles  of  the 
school  is  the  motive  of  human  action.  The  question 
is  a  far  deeper  one  than  such  moralists  assum.e.  It  is 
not  whether  virtue  demands  an  unselfish  love  ;  it  is 
whether  there  can  be  any  meaning  in  the  word  at  all, 
unless  we  have  the  assurance  of  a  reality  beyond  the 
present.       Pleasure  and    pain  are  the    only  realities. 


384  EpocJis  in   Church  History. 

Truth,  honesty,  purity,  are  abstractions.  If  we  be- 
lieve that  there  is  no  moral  governor  of  the  world, 
that  we  are  only  insects  of  a  day  in  this  busy  ant-hill, 
that  all  our  efforts  after  wisdom  or  goodness  are  to 
end  with  ourselves,  so  far  as  any  assurance  of  their 
reality  is  given  us,  what  then  is  virtue  ?  What  is 
vice  ?  what  the  possibility  of  such  relief  in  duty  as  to 
uphold  an  earnest  man  in  self-sacrilice  for  a  dream  ? 
It  may  be  that  a  sincere  mind  like  Mill  will  scorn  the 
base  maxim,  "  Eat  and  drink,  for  to-morrow  we  die ; " 
but  it.  is  no  less  sure  that  his  virtue  v/ill  be  only  the 
inconsistency  of  a  moral  faith  that  survives  the  scep- 
ticism. It  may  be  that  culture  will  teach  us  to  hus- 
band our  pleasures  temperately,  as  Epicurus  did ;  but 
it  is  sure  that  the  virtue  of  the  best  will  be  a  selfish 
ease,  and  the  bulk  of  men  will  be  of  the^^ grcx  cpiairir 
And  what,  again,  is  this  life  for  the  race,  which  we 
are  told  is  nobler  far  than  the  wish  of  a  personal 
immortality  ?  What  is  our  hope  of  the  permanent 
triumph  of  good  for  a  breed  of  insects,  that  sprang 
we  know  not  whence,  and  will  vanish  we  know  not 
when  or  whither  ?  What  shall  keep  down  the  fierce 
or  sad  pessimism  which  even  now  is  the  outcome  of 
this  latest  morality,  and  has  its  utterance  in  that  de- 
spairing jest  of  Renan,  Nous  sommes  exploites  "  ? 

Yet  I  need  go  no  further  than  to  the  essays  of  Mr. 
Mill  for  his  refutation.  It  must  have  been  in  a  mood 
of  strange  human  weakness  he  wrote  this :  '^  The  in- 


Personal  Rcsztrrcction  and  Physical  Science.      385 

dulgence  of  hope  with  regard  to  the  government  of 
the  universe  and  the  destiny  of  man  after  death, 
while  we  have  no  ground  for  more  than  a  hope,  is  le- 
gitimate and  philosophically  defensible."  '^  It  allays 
that  sense  of  the  irony  of  nature,  so  painful  when  we 
see  the  sacrifices  of  a  wise  and  noble  life  culminating 
only  to  disappoint.  The  loftier  aspirations  are  no  lon- 
ger checked  by  a  sense  of  the  insignificance  of  hum.an 
life,  by  the  disastrous  feeling  of  not  worth  v/hile." 
Scepticism  is  indeed  its  own  antidote.  Could  a  Chris- 
tian divine  have  given  a  nobler  statement?  But  what 
becom.es  of  the  theory  ?  If  the  desire  of  personal 
immortality  be  baseless,  and  the  love  of  the  race  more 
unselfish  without  it,  it  is  the  du':y  of  the  sage  to  crush 
it  forever.  This  is  the  logic  of  the  ethics  ;  and  the 
only  marvel  is,  that  a  moral  sense  so  true  had  not 
swept  from  his  brain  the  cobweb  of  unbelief. 

But  I  must  briefly  pass,  in  closing,  to  the  later 
ideas  of  the  school.  It  is  in  Mr.  Harrison  that  this 
doctrine  of  immortality  in  the  race  has  found  its  full- 
est expression.  I  shall  not  dwell  at  length  on  his  two 
essays  on  *'  The  Soul  and  the  Future  Life,"  because 
he  has  only  repeated  Vvath  less  clearness  and  more 
rhetoric  the  scientific  viev/s  of  Mill  ;  but  he  stands 
alone  as  the  author  of  a  new  and  brilliant  discovery  in 
ethics.  It  is  his  position,  that  "the  notion  of  a  spirit- 
ual entity,  other  than  this  organism,  needs  no  refuta- 
tion now  ;"  and  thus,  "  at  death  the  existence  of  the 
17 


386  Epochs  ill  CJnwch  History. 

complex  entity,  to  which  we  attribute  consciousness, 
undoubtedly — i.c.^  for  aught  we  know  to  the  con- 
trary— comes  to  an  end."  But  we  are  now  to  admire 
the  upbuilding  of  a  religion  on  this  physical  basis.  We 
are  told  that  this  is  not  materialism,  but  that  he  looks 
with  horror  on  the  irreligious  science  that  makes  "  de- 
votion a  molecular  change  in  this  or  that  convolution 
of  gray  pulp."  He  is  prepared  to  give  us  a  hope  of 
immortality,  that  shall  be  at  once  free  from  supersti- 
tion, yet  satisfy  every  spiritual  longing.  And  what  is 
this  secret?  It  is  the  perpetuity  of  life  in  the  organ- 
isms of  other  human  beings.  Let  no  reader  turn 
from  this  startling  paradox ;  but  listen  to  our  new  St. 
Paul.  Although  this  personal  compound  is  dissolved, 
yet  the  intellectual  and  moral  activities  do  not  end ; 
nay,  they  are  not  dispersed  like  the  elements  of  the 
body,  but  ''  they  continue  largely  in  their  organic 
unities,"  and  ''  pass  into  the  mental  and  moral  being 
of  a  similar  organism."  Thus  the  organic  activity  of 
Newton  is  more  real  after  death.  Is  not  this,  he  asks 
in  rapture,  a  nobler  idea  than  that  of  "  a  ceaseless 
psalmody  in  an  immaterial  heaven  "?  ''  The  Christian 
looks  to  a  permanence  of  consciousness,  which  can 
enjoy,"  this  to  "  a  permanence  of  activities,  that  give 
others  happiness."  Make  it  ^'  the  basis  of  philosophy 
and  religion,"  and  this  doctrine  of  our  continued  life 
in  the  race  will  be  the  "greatest  of  motives." 

Such  is  the  doctrine   of  the  essay,  and  we  can  only 


Personal  Resurrection  and  Physical  Science.     3S7 

ask,  after  much  pondering,  what  does  it  mean?  We 
can  understand  Mr.  Mill's  plain  English  of  the  influ- 
ence of  a  good  man  after  death.  But  what,  we  say 
with  Socrates,  what,  O  wonderful  man !  is  this  intel- 
lectual and  moral  activity,  which,  after  the  complex 
organism  of  nerves  and  cells  and  thought  and  feeling 
is  decomposed,  continues  in  its  organic  unity  in  a 
similar  organism  ?  Is  it  personal  ?  if  so,  how  can  it 
pass  into  a  second  personality?  Is  it  impersonal? 
how,  then,  can  it  continue  in  its  organic  unity?  Are 
there  several  minds  in  one  conscious  entity?  The 
Hindu  idea  of  transmigration  has  its  perplexities  ;  but 
it  is  science  compared  with  this.  If  this  subject  which 
is  object,  this  personal  impersonality,  and  impersonal 
personality,  this  me  which  is  not  me,  and  not  me 
which  is  me,  if  this  be  the  basis  of  the  new  alliance 
between  science  and  religion,  we  may  indeed  grant 
that  ''  ignorance  is  the  mother  of  devotion."  It  is 
neither  science  nor  religion.  We  could  have  wished 
that  another  Socrates  had  been  at  the  symposium 
held  over  this  essay ;  but  certainly  the  dissecting- 
knife  of  Professor  Huxley,  no  Socrates  indeed,  yet  a 
keen  surgeon,  went  to  the  medulla  of  it.  "  It  is  a 
half-breed  between  science  and  theology;  and,  like 
most  half-breeds,  with  the  faults  of  both  parents  and 
the  virtues  of  neither."  Nothing  can  better  describe 
it  than  the  author's  phrase  touching  the  Christian 
doctrine :  it  is  "  a  matter  for  dithyrambic  hypotheses 


388  Epochs _  in  Church  History. 

and  evasive  tropes."  But  we  will  stay  no  longer  on 
this  criticism.  We  can  leave  it  vvdth  the  comforting 
thought  that  at  least  our  new  scientists  will  teach  us 
not  to  mistake  for  a  lofty  ethics  a  trick  of  speech,  but 
to  accept  on  the  one  hand  the  truth  of  a  personal 
resurrection,  or  the  plain  fact  that  there  is  no  life 
beyond  the  decaying  body.  This  is  the  outcome  of 
the  philosophy,-  which  boasts  itself  to  be  the  flow- 
erage  of  all  the  knowledge  of  the  centuries.  It  can 
give  us  at  last  only  the  dream  of  an  imm.ortality  in 
the  race,  yet  the  race  itself  is  but  the  scries  of  mortal 
births  in  a  world,  which  knows  nothing  of  the  future 
save  the  one  certainty  of  death ;  nothing  of  our  des- 
tiny save  a  struggle  after  a  wisdom  that  ends  in  anni- 
hilation. Modern  scepticism  is  its  own  best  refuta- 
tion. Its  science  is  a  false  reading  of  the  laws  of 
organic  life,  and  its  ethics  are  the  ethics  of  despair. 

Yet  as  I  close  this  essay,  it  will  be,  I  trust,  to  leave 
the  reader  not  only  with  the  feeling  that  our  Christian 
faith  has  nothing  to  fear,  but  that  we  have  much  to 
hope  from  the  study  of  this  great  subject.  If  I  have 
proved  any  thing,  it  is  that  science  itself  will,  by  its 
own  just  method,  guide  the  mind  of  our  time  out  of 
this  dreary  nihilism.  The  better  knowledge  of  physi- 
cal laws  will  lead  to  that  of  the  intellectual  and  moral 
life.  The  Christian  doctrine  in  its  turn  will  be  purged 
of  the  misty  notions,  and  yet  more  of  the  selfish  mo- 


Personal  Resurrection  and  Physical  Science.     389 

rality  which  have  obscured  it.  I  cannot  doubt  that 
this  is  as  needful  for  the  cure  of  scepticism  as  any  direct 
attacks.  And  thus,  last  of  all,  I  am  persuaded,  we 
shall  learn  the  deeper  lesson  which  this  controversy 
should  give  us.  It  has  always  seemed  to  me  an  ad- 
mirable logic  in  Cousin,  when  he  proves  that  atheism 
is  impossible  in  the  nature  of  human  thought,  and 
that  the  sophistry  of  Lucretius,  if  we  examine  it,  ad- 
mits the  Infinite  Cause  it  verbally  denies.  As  we  have 
thus  read  the  pages  of  Mr.  Mill,  vast  as  the  chasm 
seems  between  him  and  Christianity,  w^e  have  found 
the  best  answers  to  his  theory  in  the  admission  of  his 
moral  feeling,  which  clung  to  the  pure  precepts  of  a 
Gospel  he  denied,  and  even  held  the  hope  of  a  future 
a  source  of  comfort.  In  that  light  we  may  believe 
that  many  minds  are  nearer  to  the  truth  than  they 
suppose  ;  that  the  scepticism  of  our  time  is  but  a  pass- 
ing  phase  of  thought ;  and  that  the  faith  which  the- 
ories never  gave,  and  can  never  take  away,  will  abide 
as  undying  as  the  moral  nature  of  man. 


Prince.onT.eolo.<ial,a^^^^^^ 


7"75T2  01208  2592 


Date  Due 

DEi6'54 

Miinmiif^i, 

/ 

■ 

f) 

